 Good day, May 40 here. So, Joe Biden is risking it all in Ukraine. I mean, the world is risking a cataclysm that could completely end human life on the globe. And Joe Biden's doing it for the same reason that John F. Kennedy risked nuclear annihilation in 1962 because midterms are coming up. So, when it comes to foreign policy, the United States president has pretty much all the prerogatives, all the rights of King George III, right? When King George III ruled England, right? The president can take us to war, and there's virtually nothing we can do about it. And Joe Biden's rolling out for him, right? His domestic program isn't going anywhere. He's got high inflation. He's got all these problems, and so he's willing to risk everything in standing up to Russia in Ukraine, which might bring on World War III. So, let's have a look and see what Tucker Carlson has to say. Good evening, and welcome to Tucker Carlson Tech. We do not want to deliver another depressing show and we won't. But, if you're looking at the country and thinking how do we measure the health of the United States, there are pretty obvious ways to do it. The average life expectancy is one, the marriage rate, the effectiveness of the U.S. military, housing costs, the value of the U.S. dollar, health of the financial market, safety of our streets, et cetera. By every single one of those very basic measures, the Biden administration has failed and done so dramatically. Biden isn't simply incompetent, though obviously he is. Biden is the single most destructive force in the history of the United States. In just a year and a half, Biden and Ron Klain, his strange shadowy chief of staff, have done more damage to this country than anybody could possibly have imagined. We read the numbers every night, but they don't capture it. You know what captures it? This story. This story comes from the reliably liberal financial news outlet CNBC. Here's the second sentence of the piece. Quote, a rising number of former Californians are migrating out of the country altogether and are instead heading south of the border. Many are seeking a more relaxed and affordable lifestyle in Mexico. Yes, in Mexico, not Switzerland, Mexico. So things are so bad in Joe Biden's America that thousands of Americans are voluntarily moving to a third world country in the middle of a brutal drug war. Yes, there are human heads littering the side of the road in Acapulco, but at least it's not Los Angeles. Daryl Graham works in real estate in Mexico. He says of the people he sells to, quote, at least half are coming down from California. Suddenly the cost of taxes, the crime rates, the politics, all the things that people are unhappy with in California make them want to come down to Mexico. Another analyst who studies the trend at the Migration Policy Institute says, so many Americans are relocating to Mexico right now that locals are being priced out of their own neighborhoods. So it's mass migration in reverse. It's pretty amazing. No matter how bad you thought this administration was going to be, you probably could not have imagined ever caravans of Biden refugees fleeing our country across the southern border looking for a better life in Mexico. At this rate, the next stop will be Port-au-Prince. Say what you know about Haiti. It's better than Baltimore. Now one upside of moving to Latin America is like-minded neighbors. Hispanics despise Joe Biden too. Biden's approval rating among Hispanic voters in this country has fallen to 24%. That's as lowest among any demographic group. Meanwhile, as of tonight, guess who's the preferred candidate for 2024 among self-described Latinos? That's right. The Taco Bowl guy, Donald J. Trump. Let that sink in for a second. Donald Trump supposedly the most anti-Hispanic racist this country has ever produced, that man, is far more popular among actual Hispanics than a cringing white liberal like Joe Biden. So the guy who tried to build a border wall is loved. The guy who uses the words Latinx non-ironically is hated. Remarkable. It's also, and this is not an overstatement, politically a disaster of generational magnitude for the Democratic Party. Latinos dislike Joe Biden intensely and they dislike him for the same reason that everybody else does. Biden has made things worse, a lot worse. The median income in this country is $44,000 a year. Imagine trying to live on that right now. Do the math. You couldn't do it, not in any recognizably American way. Inflation is too high. It's making you poorer. Well today in Philadelphia, Joe Biden unveiled his plan to fix inflation. Now watch this tape and keep in mind as you do that it is real. We've not edited it in any way. Here it is. We can do all this. I'm asking, all I'm asking is for the largest corporations and the wealthiest Americans to begin to pay their fair share in taxes. I'm deadly earnest. Anybody out there think the tax system is fair? Raise your hand. This guy, the AFL-CIO. How many private sector labor union members support Joe Biden? 12%, 15%, it's not 50%. And yet they host the guy? They're so corrupt. But listen to the message. Higher taxes will make the things that you buy cheaper. That's what Biden just said. Inflation is up because taxes aren't high enough. Now it's hardly a defense of corporate America, which we would never defend, to point out that that as an economic analysis is completely insane. It's not true. We've lost control of inflation because people like Joe Biden pushed a species of lunacy called modern monetary theory. They printed an endless torrent of fake money to enrich and empower themselves. And by doing that, they crashed the US dollar and made you much poorer. That's what happened. There's not much debate about that. Now they're not going to acknowledge it, of course. They can't even be bothered to pretend to care about baby formula shortages. Here's Joe Biden's publicist just yesterday. So I have two questions on baby formula. So first, what is the White House? What is the latest update the White House has received on the current infant formula situation across the country? Yeah, let me see if I have anything new for you on that. I think it's been a couple of days since we have been asked that question. Okay. I don't have anything new. I know we made some announcements last week. I just don't have them in front of me. Oh, mothers can't feed their babies. Let me see what I have here. Somehow the White House communications team forgot to load the baby formula talking points into the binder, leaving our historic LGBTQ plus immigrant class ceiling, shattering press secretary speechless. I just don't have them in front of me. In other words, what does that question have to do with trans rights? Nothing? Okay, next. The one thing Karine Jean Pierre can say with dead certainty is that Joe Biden is great. Joe Biden is energetic. He's fully in charge of his faculties. In fact, he's planning on running again in 2024, by which time all of suburban Chicago will have moved to Haiti in search of a higher standard of living. She actually said that quote to be clear, as the president himself has said repeatedly, he plans to run in 2024. And we can just guess how you feel about that. But how do leaders of the Democratic Party feel about that? He's their guy. And yet they're horrified by it. Even Sandy Cortez, who can defend anything if she has to uptune, including the other pointless neocon war in Ukraine, even she can't get behind another Joe Biden run. Watch. We'll cross that bridge when we get to it. But but I think if if the president has a vision and that's something certainly we're all willing to entertain and examine when the when the time comes. That's not a yes. I believe that the president has been doing a very good job so far. And you know, should he run again? I think that I you know, I think it's it's we'll take a look at it. Yeah, we'll cross that bridge. We will take a look at it. So what they're really saying, and this is their latest talking point, is we don't like Joe Biden and we never have. They've got nothing to do with Joe Biden. Turns out David Axelrod and Joe Scarborough and the other professional liars who foisted the senile mannequin on America are now trying to run away from him. The New York Times, which is their newsletter, ran a front page story two days ago on Sunday about Joe Biden's mental decline. Really? That topic was completely off limits just a year ago. You couldn't say it. The New York Times quoted one DNC official who's advising Biden to announce now, right after the midterms that he's not running again, is David Axelrod, mastermind of the Obama victories, put it himself, quote, the presidency is a monstrously taxing job and the stark reality is the president will be closer to 90 than 80 at the end of a second term. And that would be a major issue. In other words, he's too freaking old. Biden's got dementia. Who knew? Well, actually, they all knew and they all knew all along and they should not be allowed at this late day to evade their culpability for knowing and lying about it. They committed this crime. These people are cynical. They're ruthless. They're morally disfigured. And if you need more proof of that, consider how they're treating poor Kamala Harris. They've abandoned Kamala Harris completely. It's shocking, really, given that just 18 months ago, these very same people were yelling at you about how lucky you were to have this historically Indian black female vice president, the very first in history. It was thrilling. They got emotional just thinking about it. Kamala Harris was that wonderful. Here's a recap. Kamala Harris is being sworn in, the first woman vice president. And our first woman vice president. We'll see our first woman vice president. It will be a historic day. Kamala Harris will be the first woman vice president of the United States. We marked the swearing that as the first woman in American history elected to national office. Vice president Kamala Harris. Don't tell me things can't change. Don't tell me things can't change. Oh, they can change and they have. That was just the other day we were getting goosebumps listening to it. But now they're ghosting Kamala Harris like a bad Tinder date. They're pretending she doesn't exist. In effect, in doing that, the Democratic Party is embracing white supremacy. How? Well, Democratic Party leaders plan to deny Harris a job that she has earned as Democratic nominee and replace her in the next cycle with yet another. Wait for it now. White man. Let's try Beto. How about Mayor Pete? Notice a theme here? Pale and male. Is there forever telling us? Because it turns out diversity isn't actually our strength. Equity, inclusion are fine if you're hiring middle managers at a big company. You would never hire a middle-aged white guy at Citibank. That's probably illegal. Same with the airlines and hospitals who got way too many white male pilots and heart surgeons and Supreme Court justices. The Biden administration tells us that constantly they seem to mean it. They use DOJ to enforce their rules. Yet somehow the most anti-white political party in the English-speaking world is suddenly pushing another white man for president. How does that work? Joe Biden and friends, Ron Klain. Well, it turns out the presidency is a different thing. Affirmative action is essential for vice presidents. Obviously, that's how we got Kamala Harris in the first place, but not for presidents. Presidents have too much power, so the usual diversity standards don't apply. We've had 46 male white male presidents in a row, and the Democratic Party wants you to have another. Not so fast, racists. Hold on a second. Now, the rest of official Washington may be completely on board with this coup against Kamala Harris, who again earned the job. They may be willing to stand back and allow America's highest-ranking moment of color to be degraded and humiliated in the pages of the New York Times, but we're not. We believe Kamala Harris is a human being with hopes and dreams and aspirations. She's a first in so many ways. She celebrated Kwanzaa before it was even invented. And of course, now that Oprah is retired, Kamala Harris is America's main source of life-affirming aphorisms that don't actually mean anything. Watch this montage, which we have lovingly collected, and ask yourself how anyone could stand in the way of this woman becoming President of the United States. You know, when we talk about our children, I know for this group, we all believe that when we talk about the children of the community, they are the children of the community. And so what we all experienced is on an electric school bus, on an electric bus, no exhaust, no diesel smell. It is time for us to do what we have been doing in that time as every day. Every day it is time for us to agree. This whole thing about the border, we've been to the border. We've been to the border. You haven't been to the border. And I haven't been to Europe. And I mean, I don't think, and my pronouns are she, her and hers. She would look down at me and Kamala, what do you want? What do you want? And I look back up and I said, Sweet'em! You're gonna literally see the craters on the moon with your own eyes. With your own eyes, I'm telling you. We must together, work together to see where we are, where we are headed, but also see it as a moment, yes, to together. It is the perspective of a woman who grew up a black child in America, who was also a prosecutor, who also has a mother who arrived here at the age of 19 from India, who also, you know, likes hip hop. What do you want to know? What do you want to know? She's unbelievable. You would deny that person a chance to serve. That is the person. The Democratic insiders are tonight, ladies and gentlemen, trying to remove from the public stage. And if no one else will say it, we will. It's wrong. Despite appearances, Kamala Harris is not a disposable consumer product. She's a pioneer. Do you know what she went through trying to get a fair shake in the systemically racist country as the daughter of college professors? It wasn't easy. You know how hard she worked? At one point, she even dated Montell Williams. Few would go that far, but Kamala Harris did. No wonder she's sick and tired of being sick and tired. We get it. Watch as she did the work and unpacked her generational trauma live on television for you. You know, there was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bussed to school every day. And that little girl was me. That little girl was me. Now that little girl actually grew up in French-speaking Canada, not in the Jim Crow South. But whatever, look what she's become. Now, simply because she's a moron and no one likes her, even agrees on how to pronounce her first name, the Democratic Party is trying to throw Harris away. Toss her out the window like a used Big Mac rapper. Now Kamala Harris may be stained with secret sauce, but she deserves more than that. Yes, she does. Mediocrity is no excuse for firing someone. A low IQ, a terrible personality, a total inability to do the prescribed job. Those are not reasons to deny someone a job. The Biden Administration has told us that repeatedly. By the way, democracy plays a role in this too. You just saw the woman who Liz Cheney tells us a lot, got 81 million votes in the last election. That's the most votes of any Vice President in history. That's more votes than Liz Cheney's dad got. So denying Kamala Harris the Democratic nomination in 2024 is nothing less than a form of insurrection. It's an attack on democracy and on our sacred norms. It's disinformation, probably Russian and origin. Whatever it is, we cannot allow it. And as long as this show is on the air, we won't. Tonight we are endorsing Kamala D. Harris for the 2024 Democratic primaries. She deserves it. And so do Democrats. They created her. They should be forced to live with her. And anyone who disagrees with that is, by definition, a racist. Candace Owens is the founder of the charity, Blexit. She joins us tonight. It's a little weird Candace Owens to see the Democratic Party, people like David Axelrod and Joe... Okay, so reasonable and responsible wanted my reaction to Tucker Carlson's monologue. So my reaction to him as every Tucker Carlson monologue is that he's riveting TV. He's dramatic. And how do you create drama? It's not usually with the judicious sharing of wisdom. It's you present a distorted picture of reality to rally your side. So I think Tucker Carlson is usually hate porn. But he's hate porn for my side. So I'm generally sympathetic to his worldview. But at the same time, I recognize his product as hate porn. It should only be consumed in reasonable quantities by people who can handle it and won't spin off and go off the handle. Because probably the biggest disagreement that I have with my chat is that I don't believe people evolved to be gullible. Right? We wouldn't be here if the end product of tens of thousands of years of human evolution was that we just believed things that we were told by our social superiors. We have evolved. We've developed an effective skepticism of other people when they try to manipulate us and convince us of things, particularly on things that are of vital importance for our life. Now we can believe various conspiracy theories about there's life on Mars, that you know this person died for our sins, that the key to eternal life is XYZ. But these abstract matters have nothing to do with how we lead our daily lives. So how we spend our money, the choices we make in our daily lives, people tend to be appropriately skeptical. And the net effect of political propaganda and media propaganda and the propaganda of our educational system is not zero, but it's fairly close to zero. It's a lot closer to zero than it is even to five percent. I don't believe that the combination of the news media, of our academic institutions, our educational institutions, our cultural institutions, our legal institutions, our big business institutions trying to shift us in certain directions, I don't believe it even affects five percent of us. So if I had to put a number on it, I think maybe it shifts one percent of the vote at most. I think probably shifts one percent of the vote. So I don't believe that we evolve to be gullible. I don't believe that people are just sheep who, you know, follow what the media tells them, who just do what their teachers tell them. And one proof of this is the number of times Americans have voted for Republicans or president, even though, actually, the elites were united in condemning this election. So Dwight Eisenhower was elected president of the United States twice in the 1950s, even though elites were opposed to him. Richard Nixon was elected president of the United States twice as a Republican, even though the elites were overwhelmingly opposed to him. Ronald Reagan was elected twice as president of the United States as a Republican, even though the elites were overwhelmingly opposed to him. George H. W. Bush was elected once, even though the elites were opposed to him. George W. Bush was elected twice, even though the elites were opposed to him. And even though the elites were overwhelmingly against Donald Trump in 2016, he also was elected president of the United States. So if our educational and media and business and control and legal elites had as much power as many people think, then these Republican victories would not have happened. So how come the left can dominate the news media, can dominate the academy, can dominate our schools, can dominate big law, can dominate much of corporate America? And yet people still feel free to vote Republican. So I don't think that the media propaganda and educational propaganda and cultural propaganda and they, right, the shadowy they who are supposedly controlling us, I don't think they have nearly as much power as you probably think they do. So this conspiratorial mindset that there's this shadowy group, the, you know, the banker class, the, the deep state, the intelligence community is just manipulating most of our citizens and, you know, people are just sheep in their hands. I just don't think it's true. And it echoes, it echoes with what happened in the late 1960s, early 1970s with left wing terrorism. All right. Why was this there, this surge of left wing terrorism in the late 1960s, early 1960s, 70s, a terrorism far more severe, far more debilitating, that killed far more people than what we have in our present day from in Tifa and what we have in our present day from right wing sources. The reason you had this surge of left wing terrorism was that the left in America and in Europe, particularly in Germany, it became convinced that the consciousness of the people had been irremediably warped by capitalism. So just like you believe that the consciousness of the people is irremediably warped by our educational system and by the news media and by shadowy elites, right, the left also believed that the consciousness of people was irremediably warped by capitalism. And so because the consciousness of the people is warped, then you probably think on the right right now that politics doesn't really matter because it's just like shadowy elites who are running things and people on the left who went into left wing terrorism such as the weathermen underground and the the Red Army, the Bidermindhoff complex in Germany, they simply believe that the consciousness of people was so warped that politics was absolutely useless because people were not free to really make decisions because they lacked the ability to navigate the system. So whether you think it's an oppressive capitalist system that's warping people, whether you think it's an oppressive system that's run by the deep state, by the banker class, by the intelligence community, either way, you're essentially saying the people are too stupid to have to understand what's going on. The people are just sheep. And what this leads to is two primary responses. One is just apathy with regard to our wider world, our community, with regard to the political, with regard to making social and cultural change. You just give up, right? Because shadowy forces are just too powerful. So this tends to be the response of losers, right? People who are losing it life, people who are unable to keep up, people who have the benefits of freedom, but then are unable to construct a coherent identity that works for them. And so they see their peers moving on ahead of them, accumulating wealth, accumulating prestige, building a family, building a career, building happiness, right? If you see your peers, people who are no more intelligent or talented than you, being much more successful than you in life, it's very tempting to dissociate from reality. Say, oh, this is so confusing. And then choose an explanation for your confusion. Oh, it's this or that conspiracy, right? And these malevolent forces, they're just way too powerful for me to take on, right? There's nothing I can do. The shadowy conspiracy groups that are absolutely running things. So that's the reaction of losers. Now, people who feel that they have agency, people who aren't losers, but still believe that the consciousness of the people is warped, that the people are too stupid, too manipulated, too propagandized to be able to see what's really going on, right? Then if you think there's some shadowy group that's warping the people and that conventional politics is useless, then you're very likely to take violent action, right? If the system is corrupt and cannot be fixed through conventional means, and you feel that you're a person who has agency, then it's very likely that you'll become sympathetic, if not an active participant in terrorism, whether you're on the right or the left. And I think this is a bad idea. I don't think one should usually devote one's life to politics, but we can make sense of the world around us. And I'm not saying trust Joe Biden or trust any public figure. You have to understand everyone in their context, understand everybody in their genre, situate people in their genre. Politicians are obviously deeply affected by the incentives that operate on them. No more that you are deeply affected by the incentives that operate on you. And I'm deeply affected by the incentives that operate on me. So you have to understand who is the person who is saying something? Who is his primary audience? What's his backstory? What are the incentives he's operating under? What is the ideology he is trying to promote? Or what's the cause that he's trying to promote? And then is there anything in what he's saying that contradicts his ideology? Because if there is, then it's likely that he believes that what he's saying there is actually true. And he in some instances has a commitment to truth that goes above and beyond his ideological commitments. So yeah, we have to understand all institutions and all individuals critically understanding where they set in history, their own personal history, what are the forces that are operating on them? What are the incentives that they face? And now, if you want to take that to personal life, and you say you trust absolutely no one, then really, what you're saying is you're afraid of human connection. You're afraid of building a normal life. You're afraid of making friends. You're afraid of committing to a relationship. You're afraid of living life in community. So if you extend strong distrust to everybody, including in your personal life, then you have spiral downward into a deeply dysfunctional dark place. Right? And when you say you trust someone, it shouldn't mean that you just trust them implicitly that they'll always act in your best interest, you understand that your interests are never 100% aligned with someone else's interests. So as soon as you form any kind of connection with someone, you are also at the same time creating the potential for betrayal. And if you develop a relationship over time, the inevitability of betrayal, because betrayal is simply the hyperbolic word that we use for when other people don't have the priorities that we want them to have or expect them to have. But other people will never have our priorities 100% of the time. Different people have different interests. People will choose things that we wish that they don't. So you may have made plans to, you know, fly across the country to spend quality time with a friend. And your friend ends up having a higher priority, maybe work, maybe other relationships, other commitments. And so you feel betrayed because you went to all this effort to spend time with your friend. And but your friends not betraying you, he's simply being true to other commitments. Right? So a wife who sleeps around on a husband. Yeah, you can say she's betraying her husband. But she from an objective perspective is simply putting a higher value on other forms of connection on other relationships. So we expect people will behave as we perceive them. Right? We we tend to have highly distorted perspectives on other people because the complexity of human beings is just way too much for us to handle. Right? So just as a an economizing device on our time and energy to soothe our emotions, to calm ourselves down in a chaotic world that's far more dangerous than we consciously think about most of the time, we develop pictures of other people that other people that Joe is honest, that Jeff is outgoing, that the Jack is successful in business, that Jill is reliable, that Barry will never let you down, that Mick will show up when he says he does, that Peter is a truth teller. Right? We develop these pictures of people in our life. And we ascribe to them all sorts of traits that they only have situationally. So in certain situations, Mick is reliable in certain situations, Jill does tell the truth. But neither Jill is not a truth teller. Right? I'm not a truth teller. In certain situations, I tell the truth. In other situations, I tell lies. And in other situations, it's a mixture. Right? So we think Peter, he's a brave man. Well, Peter is a brave man only in certain situations. You think your mother loves you. Yeah, your mother may love you in certain situations. But I assure you, there are plenty of things that could either happen to your mother, or actions that you could take that would end her love for you. You may think that your girlfriend looks up to you and admires you. But there are plenty of actions that you could take that would end that. And there are plenty of situations where she could see you in. And her admiration for you would start dissipating. So you may think that Jackie is reliable. Well, in certain situations, Jackie, your employee is reliable. But when she gets out of work, she's turns very likely into different human being. And there'll be all sorts of situations where she's not reliable. You may think that your rabbi is wise. Well, there are going to be certain situations where your rabbi is wise, and many other situations where he's an idiot. Nobody's wise in all circumstances. You may think Jack's brave. Well, there are certain circumstances where Jack's brave, but there are all sorts of situations where Jack is a coward. So we form these conceptions of people. We mark them down as having these certain immutable traits. Because in our likelihood, we only see these people in certain situations that bring out these certain traits. But people are far more complicated than that. But we just ignore or contrary evidence, because it would it would require too much strain on our mind to recognize the left is about as equal as the right to be correct about things would just be upsetting. I'm someone who's just congenitally genetically, traditionally right wing. But why did we evolve all these left wing tendencies of openness to new ideas to experimenting with how you organize human community to compassion for those who who are suffering and you know, making stupid decisions, left wing tendencies to try to nurture people instead of punish them. Because these these tendencies had evolutionary benefits over time. In certain situations, these tendencies do good things. They help people survive and transmit their seed to future generations. And in some circumstances, these tendencies comprise the the test of natural selection. Now, we also have right wing tendencies to fear strangers to have strong fear reactions to consider that which is new to be highly suspicious to prefer traditional ways of organizing life. Right. These tendencies have also proven themselves over thousands of years of genetic testing and evolution and the survival of the fittest natural selection. Right. We have these right wing tendencies. We have these left wing tendencies. And some people are more right wing in their genetics and other people are more left wing in their genetics and experience, but we need both. Right. Because obviously these different tendencies have evolved and are still with us thousands and thousands and thousands of years later, because they play a role in natural selection, they play an important role in enabling us to survive and to thrive. So we have a lot to learn from the left. And we have we have a lot to learn from the center. Right. We have a lot to learn from from other people. Let's get a little more and we have a lot to learn from Tucker Carlson. So let's put him in his proper genre. It's one of the most important systems built up over the generations in the United States is our system of domestic air travel. You can fly from one place to another pretty cheaply, pretty reliably. In the last year and a half, it has collapsed. The Biden administration did this and it did it on purpose. We have exclusive new details on how they did that and how they're still doing it. Plus hundreds of drivers in California managed to get gas for less than a dollar a gallon. How that happened exactly. We'll tell you straight ahead. Okay. Thanks, Tucker. Let's let's go to the chat. Look forward, will you be voting for Biden again in 2024? I didn't vote for him in 2020. I think he was the best of all the Democratic candidates for president, the major ones. I mean, I guess Tulsi Gabbard would have been better. But compared to Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders or Cory Booker, I prefer Biden. But I was bloke who votes for Trump. Josh Randall says this is all scripted nonsense methods of disunification and propaganda is all we have now. Right. You're living in about the freer society in the world in human history and think that everything's just scripted nonsense. Right. I think you're thinking of being a little hard on reality. Right. Compared to where? Right. If you think everything now is scripted nonsense, all about disunification and propaganda, that's all we have. I mean, you're living in a beautiful country, filled with many beautiful people and beautiful opportunities. I mean, never before have we had such an easy ability to share ideas, you know, all over the globe. There are so many awesome things about being alive now. I mean, when do you think it was better? And where do you think it's better? If you think that all we have now is propaganda, I'm sad for you. We have the ability to easily download books, pretty much any book you want. You can find it on Library Genesis and you can download it for free and you can read it and you can get informed. There are so many great lectures online. There are so many, you know, wonderful live streams such as this one where people can get informed. Please shut up. You don't diagnose me. I don't know you. I only know you a little bit. I am simply reacting to a public presentation. Right. So if I comment on Richard Spencer, or I comment on Loponius or Glyb Medley, I've never met any of these people. I don't know any of these people. I am commenting on a public presentation. Right. I'm commenting on a very small sector of people that they choose to make public and I am reacting to that public presentation. Josh Randall says that the White House press secretary is just a demo site agent. I assume that means an agent dedicated to the destruction of democracy. No, I think that she has a different understanding of democracy, probably than we do. And she has a different understanding of what's good. And I don't agree with her, but I don't think she's some sinister evil force. Luke Ford is denied ever voting for any Democrat. Why would you doubt his word on that? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the dumbest moron in Congress. I don't agree with that. I think she's smart and I think she's charismatic and I think she's capable and I disagree with almost everything that she stands for. I don't trust Tucker either. It's one big club, bros. Well, obviously I don't trust Tucker, but I generally sympathize with his point of view. I mean, I think you have to understand every person critically, put them in context. The court of power is putting layer upon layer of disunifying BS and Mr. X. I trust no one, bros. I think that says more about you than what's going on right now in the world around us. I mean, we have so many opportunities for goodness and for finding truth and connection and peace and love and building friendships and building community and sharing ideas that I don't sympathize with this kind of depressed attitude. Josh, is this ranting a byproduct of crypto investments? I'm not ranting, says Josh. Josh, you trust me, bro? So far, says Josh. These are compromised people that do what they are told, bros. Guess what? I'm compromised. Guess what? You are compromised. There's nobody who's not compromised because we all live in society. We all have some human connection. And every time that you have connection, there's some compromise that comes with it. All right. Do you think I'm going to stand here and say things that make life difficult for me when I go to Orthodox synagogues? No, I'm not going to do it. I will give up some of my freedom for my Orthodox Jewish community. Do you think I'm going to stand up here and say things that would make it very difficult to pay my bills? No, I'm not. Right? I need to earn a living. So there are things that I would say if I didn't have that concern that I'm not going to say because I need to earn a living. Right? There's nobody who's not compromised. Right? People in power are just like us, except they have power. Everybody's compromised. Everybody is flawed. Everybody cries. Josh says that the clandestine community banking class is running everything. Okay, Richard Spencer assures us Biden was a masterful political mind like the Apollonian King Macron. I don't think Spencer ever said that Biden was a masterful political mind. Nobody, in fact, has ever said that Biden was a masterful political mind. Biden is not a particularly smart man, but compared to the other Democrats running for president, aside from Tulsi Gavid, probably the least the least helpful. Josh Randall says, I do not trust Tucker I don't trust Libs of Tiktok either says Leponius. The masses are utterly gullible. In what sense? Right? In what sense are they utterly gullible? And you're not, right? You're not. Everyone else is gullible, but you're not because you're superior to what 99.9% of humanity. I think you're losing touch with reality. Now, I'm sure that there are all sorts of areas, Josh, where you do see things more clearly than most people. But there are going to be other areas of life where you see things less clearly. Right? I have a gift of clarity, I think in some areas, in other areas, I'm just a bloody fool. But no one is wise in all things. So I'm highly suspicious of perspectives that, you know, I have the truth and everyone else is stupid, that the masses are just all idiots, but I really see what's going on. Right? Contrary to that, I understand myself as being filled with idiocy and people around me are filled with idiocy and wisdom and stuff in between. Right? Everyone's a mixed bag. Nixon was taken out by the establishment. Yes. Nixon was taken out because all the elites and all the institutions turned against him and he played a very significant role in that. It wasn't like it just came out of the blue and there was nothing he did. Nixon was a good boy. He was just starting to turn his life around. Nixon played a huge role in his own downfall. You have no agency when it comes to crap government policies, Mr. Ford. Right? I don't I don't I don't control the Federal Reserve. I have no effect on interest rates. I have no effect on foreign policy and no no effect on domestic policy. No, one individual is usually not going to be off to affect any of these big things, but Donald Trump stood up. No one expected that he was going to become president and there's a case of one man who made a change. And if you think that our government policies are crap, then where is it better? Like when in history is of things being so much peach year, like where is heaven on earth? If it's not in the United States, like if you think America is a hell hall, then what is North Korea? What is China? What is Africa? Right? You think life is so much better in Finland. In some ways, life is better in Finland. In some ways, it's worse. Some ways life is better in Australia. In some ways, it's worse. All right? If you're just crapping on the United States and and you don't see the many wonderful opportunities and blessings and gifts of living here, then I think you're not in reality. Luke finally pushed me away from this channel and believe me, that takes a lot. Wow. If if if if if if my belly middle of the road comments over the past few minutes pushed you away from this channel has absolutely nothing to do with me. I don't know what's going on with you has nothing to do with me. This is depressing. Yeah, it's it's depressing to think that one needs to hold on to conspiracy theories to make peace with life. But it's depressing that one needs to disassociate from reality. If one's unable to look at the failings in one's own life, if one's unable to look at the role that alcoholism, drugs, dysfunctional behavior of many kinds has reeked in your life so that you're no longer maintaining stable relationships and not building anything. And therefore, you want to believe that this is all the fault of the dark sinister forces out there. Then yeah, that's very depressing. You on other platforms, I've done with this channel says and you've made this point 100 times. Yes. And I'm saying I'm applying it to new situations. I was just reading a book, Jacob Talbs, the Professor of Apocalypse and reading about how Jacob Talbs was a big supporter of the left of the far left of the student left in Germany in the late 1960s and early 1970s and how much of that left turned to terrorism, because they believed that the consciousness of the people was irremediably warped by capitalism. Just like you believe that the consciousness of the people around you is just irremediably warped by the system. And if you're a loser, you're going to retreat into conspiracy theories. And if you're a winner, you're very likely to take anti social, possibly criminal action as a result of this perspective. So saying the same thing, applying it to new situations that I'm reading about and that I see. Luke tries, he always tries, he will never quit. If he has any strength in him, he will try. Luke is a dehumanizing dick to people with curiosity, curious distance. Okay, but you're here. He's done that to me too. And I just pushed back and angered forward. Well, just imagine guys get together and argue about the nature of reality, argue about what are the best sources of information, compare and contrast their moral values. And there are disagreements, passionate disagreements, so much so that guys just want to like wash their hands of each other and completely walk away. Wow. Whoever thought that passionate disagreements about the nature of reality, about the nature of accurate information and disagreements about the constellation of moral values that this before us. Wow, this must be the first time in human history that we're coming to passionate disagreements, driving people apart. Wow, I would have thought the passionate disagreements would have just brought people together. Luke is simply reacting to a public presentation. Exactly. Like, I didn't I don't think I've met one of you in the chat. And even if the one person in the chat who I've met, if I've never met in person, it wouldn't add that many dimensions to my friendship with him. So even if I met you in person, I still wouldn't know about 99.99% of your life, right? We only ever get access to sliver of people. So haven't you ever heard the phrase, you never really know someone? Never really know someone. Because people change and situations change. You may be mad at the airlines right now, you probably are, but thank God for them. This country could not work without reliable domestic air travel. Everything depends on any country this big. Our economy depends on a completely families dependent because they live far apart from one another. But that system is collapsing. And as with our economy and our energy sector, it's being destroyed on purpose. The Biden administration is wrecking domestic air travel. There's been no media coverage of this whatsoever. But if you travel recently, you've noticed it. Here's why it's happening. So last week, the FAA informed all air traffic employees, the people who haven't had the vaccine, the COVID Vax, which doesn't work, have to wear masks on the job. Okay, that's absolutely insane. To say the COVID Vax doesn't work. This is why I can't stand Tucker. I like Tucker and I can't stand Tucker at the same time. Right? The Vax is very effective at reducing the number of people who die from COVID. The Vax is very effective at reducing the number of people who get hospitalized by COVID. So just insane commentary there from from Tucker Carlson, which he dishes out at a pretty regular basis. So I was going to talk about how crazy it is that we are risking World War three with Russia, some nuclear exchange with Russia over Ukraine, which is not in our national interests. And just recognizing the harsh reality that this is largely because Joe Biden is deeply unpopular. And he feels like he can't afford to be seen as weak on Putin, can't afford to be seen as weak on Russia. So therefore he's got to stand up to Russia and Putin in Ukraine because if we don't fight them over there, we're going to have to fight them over here. So we are risking a nuclear cataclysm. We're risking World War three because Joe Biden is unpopular. And the same thing happened in 1962. We risked nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union. We risked nuclear war with the Soviet Union with the somewhat manufactured Cuban Missile Crisis, right? John F. Kennedy worried about his popularity. He worried that the Democrats were going to get trounced in the midterm elections. And so he overreacted to what was going on in Cuba and turned it into a dangerous crisis in large part for the sake of the political standing of his party, just like what Joe Biden is doing right now. So I think that that's probably the most significant thing that's going on in the world right now that's not commonly talked about. We are risking World War three because the Democrats are trying to shore up their position for the midterm elections. And so this goes back to a very familiar theme on the show that dictatorship and democracy are not opposites, right? Every democracy contains considerable elements of dictatorship and the president of the United States has pretty much all the foreign policy powers of King George III when he ruled Great Britain back in the 18th century. So remember what George W. Bush said, I'm the commander. See, I don't need to explain. I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation. That's a very typical attitude from a president of the United States because they have virtually unlimited power when it comes to foreign policy and starting wars. So there's this terrific law essay by a couple of Yale professors. I think if Americans know one thing about the system of government is that we live in a democracy that other less fortunate people live in dictatorships because dictatorships, those are what democracies are not. They are the very opposite of representative government under a constitution. But the opposition between democracy and dictatorship is greatly, greatly overstated. Right. So Karl Schmidt notes that the elements of dictatorship always lurk in the background of every democracy, just waiting to emerge and to transform any existing political order. Think about COVID, all those rights that you thought we had to freedom of assembly, just going to work, going to worship, going to practice your religion, all those rights got taken away like that. Right. So no matter how well designed a political system might be, no matter how awesome the constitution, the true sovereign will always be able to escape the designs of that constitution and make exceptions to it. So a claim about emergency is simply the standard cause and the standard justification for creating dictatorships. And you're never going to have a government that does not contain within it, lurking dictatorship. It's always there. And it will usually be justified by a claim of a state of emergency. Now Nikita Khrushchev, luckily, right, he was cautious in reaction to John F. Kennedy with regard to the Cuban Missile Crisis. And what was his reward? Customers job. He got fired. Right. You think he was the Soviet Union dictator? Well, he was a dictator who got removed from power because he was cautious in reaction to John F. Kennedy. Right. So even dictators often have fairly significant accountability. Right. He was a lot less of a full scale dictator than most Americans assumed. So John Yu, the author of the notorious torture memos, has argued that despite American objections to King George III, the president still enjoys the powers possessed by the English monarch at the time of the American Revolution. Right. The king and the president both enjoy unbounded discretion of the use of military force. So who is the sovereign? It's he who can successfully define something as a crisis and basically do whatever he thinks necessary to meet the crisis. So Joe Biden said, he got a COVID crisis and therefore, you know, everyone needs to wear masks. We've got a crisis in Europe. Therefore, we need to send $40 billion to Ukraine. Who knows what else he'll say we need to do to meet this crisis. So let's have a look at young Kenneth Brown. He's a big fan of the Great Reset. I want to start this video off. I think it's going to be called in defense of the Great Reset in reference to who I am, what do I do, and kind of the meta. And maybe we'll talk more about this at the end, but just whenever I surprise people or I get a negative reaction or people say you didn't used to be like this, you, you know, the videos you put out lately about the left versus right. This is just terrible. It's annoying. And it's a total deviation from what you used to do. What's funny is that the videos that I have that are most recently on that theme are cut up clips from like four years ago. So, you know, so what type of person is like terribly bothered by criticism, right? Someone who is depending upon love and support and applause for his sense of self. If you have an independent sense of self, if you are internally directed, so that if you feel good about what you're doing, then whether other people applaud, whether other people say, I'm rage quitting this channel, I'm never coming back. It doesn't really matter that much. All right. The more internally directed you are, the less you're moved or shifted or paying attention to whether or not people are applauding you or criticising you. You've changed. You've betrayed us. Now, you don't listen. People still think I do three hour long videos. I haven't done a three hour long video in years. So let's launch right into it with that copy and we might go more into that at the end. But in defense of the great reset and I've touched upon this in other videos and I'm repeating myself, but it bears repeating again, because I will make the same exact point for years and years and years and people will claim like, oh, I was your devoted fan and then you betrayed me. I'm making the same exact points. People are just selected with their hearing. So the fact that I continue to make videos, I continue to annoy people. I continue. Okay. So for microscreamers such as myself and Kim Brown to have the delusion that we have devoted fans is an escape from reality. Right. We have some people who like us in certain circumstances. Right. Some people like us on this issue of that issue. Some people enjoy the show right now. For some people at the end of a hard day, they come on the show, but they come to the show, not primarily for my sharp insights, but they may come to the show because they want to watch some Tucker Carlson. They want to see some highlights of what's going on in right wing politics, or probably they want to come come to this live stream to chat with other people who they enjoy. Right. So microscreamers such as Ken Brown, Deep Left Joke, and myself, we don't have fans. Right. And the extent that someone says, Oh, I'm your fan. They mean that situationally, like at a certain time, certain period of their life with regard to certain things that you're talking about. It's a metaphor for saying I like, you know, some of what you're doing in this context right now in my, you know, this time in my life, I'm enjoying your work. Right. So this idea that we have fans, right, is absurd. You're the alienate people. That's good. Because the truth is people form us parasocial relationship on me. They think I'm their daddy. And I guarantee you nobody thinks that Ken Brown is their daddy. And I guarantee you that there aren't that many people forming a parasocial relationship with either me or Ken Brown, because we both have small audiences. And most of our audience comes from the fact that we're willing to discuss what is conventionally described as far right politics that does not get an even-handed discussion in mainstream media. And to the extent that we stop talking about, you know, alt-right politics, 95, 98, 99% of our audience goes elsewhere because they really don't care that much for our perspectives on spiritual, psychological, religious growth, and metaphysical certitudes. And they project their views about politics on to me. So when I come out, I break their taboos. I break their sacred cows. All of a sudden they're wounded and they're out for blood and they want to kill me and whatnot. So this is something that's happened several times now. I suspect that this is somewhat hyperbolic. People tend to say things online that they wouldn't say in person. So people tend to vent things online that they wouldn't really vent in person. I think this is a hyperbolic reaction to some criticism he's received. Oh, and if you're one of those people, welcome to the show. Welcome to the show. So we're going to defend a great reset. And it's a very simple thing. I mean, we can defend, we can provide evidence for this, but there's a few premises here. There's seven billion people, there's going to be 10 billion by the end of this century. And something has to happen, right? Because Elon Musk says, oh, well, we'll just go electable and just have electric cars. The problem with that is batteries require resources, right? Batteries require resources. And those resources are finite. They're not infinite. They're not renewable. So the lithium that goes into these batteries is not renewable. It's very difficult to recycle lithium. So I'm no expert on electric cars. I certainly agree with Cad Brown that resources are finite. But human ingenuity is pretty formidable, too. There's a finite supply of lithium. The amount of energy that is required to mine lithium is very intense. There's a lot of it. You're going to have to blow up mountains cause immense ecological destruction in order to get all the lithium you need to switch seven billion people soon to be 10 billion people over from fossil fuel based cars. So his argument is you might have to destroy some mountains to switch 10 billion people over to electric cars. So if you gave me a choice between destroying some mountains and on the other hand, providing power and transportation to 10 billion people, I'd be willing to give up a few mountains. But that's just where I come from. To me, people are more important than mountains. Cars to electric cars. So as I said before, and I could make a separate video on this, I'd love to just sit down and like go through the statistics and prove why this is a serious issue. But we need to ban all cars. We need to ban. Well, we need to ban all cars. Right. He wants to sit down with you, with you, you peasants. Right. Remember, this guy, uh, disdains populism, disdains nationalism. Right. Nationalism is all about the dignity of the individual. So he wants elite role really only only the elites get dignity, people who have the right metaphysical principles. And he wants to ban all cars. Right. Because it is understanding it would it would require the tearing down of some mountains to provide power and transportation to 10 billion people. I don't believe we're ever going to get to 10 billion. World population is stabilizing. Right. All those predictions about dramatically rising world population figures leading to, you know, catastrophe haven't really happened because world population generally speaking, the growth has considerably slowed. Most trends in the world today are positive. Right. There are more good things going on in the world right now than bad things. If you think that the future looks like a dystopia, that probably says a lot more about you than it does about the nature of reality. Jordan Peterson had a good interview with a bloke who who made the point how most trends in the world right now are positive rather than negative. Now, this was probably pre covid but I think that these general points still hold up and all cars. It's difficult to ban all cars when we have billions of people running around causing all this consumer activity. Capitalists are profiting off of this. We need to reduce the population. Right. So notice he doesn't just want to eliminate all cars. He wants to get rid of billions of people because unless we get rid of billions of people, you'll require tearing down some mountains. This is the danger of of the youth who chance upon some absurd principles that they they pursue to inordinate degrees. Yeah. To get cold, you have to you have to chew up some some mountain sides. And to get energy, you may have to chew up some mountain sides. So to me, that's preferable to getting rid of billions of people. But that's just where I come from. Right. You stack the lives and well-being of ten billion people on the one hand versus the the well-being of of a mountain on the other hand. And I side with the people. I'm not for getting rid of billions of people and I'm not for banning all cars. People I mean, there's really two situations you can have. You can either reduce the population to a and this is part of what the Great Reset is about. Right. It's about reducing 99% of the population to abject what we would consider abject poverty. That's what the Great Reset is about reducing 99% of the population to abject poverty. So I'm sure there are many different understandings of the Great Reset. But I would suspect that most people who are pursuing policies that are called the Great Reset and not trying to reduce 99% of the population to abject poverty. Now, can you pursue anti-global warming policies too far so that you ruin economies? Yes. But I think Ken Brown's somewhat overstating his case here. Or you can massively reduce the size of the population. Right. These are the two alternatives to Ken Brown. You either reduce 99% of people to abject poverty or you massively get rid of billions of people. That's how he sees reality. That's kind of a scary, scary worldview. And those are the two options. There's no third option. Now, he could have a scary worldview and still be right. OK, I don't think he's right. So just because I'm saying he's got a scary worldview, I'm not disproving him. I do say that he seems unhinged, particularly when he says there's no third option. That's it. Like he's such a scholar of energy. He's such a scholar of wealth production. He's such a scholar of electric cars that he says that's our choice. Either 99% of people live in abject poverty or we have to get rid of billions of people. I think that there are some other alternatives. Option, there's no. Oh, well, we'll go to Mars and there's more lithium on Mars or well, we'll just blow up all the mountains. See, that's not that's not an acceptable that's not an acceptable like, oh, we'll just we'll launch a nuclear, you know, Elon Musk wants to launch nukes on the poles of Mars to terraform, you know, and then Neil deGrasse Tyson came came out on the Joe Rogan podcast and he said, yeah, it doesn't have an ozone layer. You're bozo. Listen, bozo, there's no ozone. You're going to get fried. You're going to get a sunburn on Mars. So I wonder if there are any other alternatives between moving to Mars, reducing 99% of the population to abject poverty or getting rid of billions of people. I suspect that there are some other alternatives. And Leponia says, my answer to anyone who wants to reduce the population is always you first. Powed ozone. So there's it's a lot bigger than just, you know, you know, having liquid water or something like that. Anyway, point is point is we're not going to blow up the Himalayas. And if you want to blow up the Himalayas, maybe your life doesn't matter. If you're like, oh, yeah, we have to whoa, whoa, the guy who wants to get rid of billions of people or reduce 99% of people to abject poverty, he thinks that those people who'd be willing to get rid of the Himalayas to say preserve 10 billion lives, that they are anti human. We need 10 billion people, you know, Elon Musk says, oh, there's no overpopulation. We need more people. We'll just nuke the Himalayas and find some lithium there. You know, I'm not an expert on global population. I'm just fine if the global population stabilizes as it seems to be stabilizing. On the other hand, I don't think 10 billion people will be the absolute end of the world as we know it. Right. I'd rather we didn't increase the global population. That's my preference. Right. Let's let's stabilize and probably reduce the global population through natural, nonviolent, non coercive means. That's not reason that is not ethical. That's not moral. This is what the guy wants to get rid of billions of people or reduce 99% of them to abject poverty. He is concerned that other perspectives are immoral. Other perspectives aside from him, they're immoral guys. Absolutely immoral. You run into with these this kind of human supremacist attitude, oh, well, we just need to breed more people. We just need more economic activity is just bigger and better. We'll just keep going on the same track. We can just finesse it a little. Oh, just a little renewables here. We'll just transition to renewable energy. And he knows better. He knows that we need to get rid of billions of people. He knows either that or reduced 99% of humanity to abject poverty and ban cars. Kenneth Brown, ladies and gentlemen, nearly ten dollars a gallon in some parts of our biggest state, California, but several lucky drivers in California managed to get a much better deal. Fox's Drake's Trace Gallagher has that story for us tonight. Hey, Trace. Hey, Tucker, 1978 was. OK, who cares about that? That's pretty, pretty weak. All right. Peter Zion. Has a new book that came out today. We are going over these seven key ideas from Peter Zion's The End of the World is just the beginning. The first section of this book is the introduction. Zion's key idea here is that peaceful, interconnected globalization that we all know is very fragile. This starts with understanding that the end now, the year twenty two, is really just the beginning because this is a book about the forces that began civilization and how relevant they remain today and the unraveling of those forces that we're about to see. The first of those forces is the geography of success, specifically success for growing and processing food and then freeing up labor to allow civilization to develop. In that process, people started to move off of the farm into higher value added jobs. The United States of America has the greatest geography of success. We have coast lands that protect us to the east and west. We have great lands for farming in the middle and we have a system of roads and rivers that allows transport for all of that to interconnect at all. So we have what Zion defines as the geography of success. On the back of American success, the Bretton Woods system lifted not only America, but the entire world economically. We call that Bretton Woods. And the basic idea was that we will subsidize your systems. We will patrol the oceans for everyone. We will guarantee all of your security so long as you are on our side versus the seeds. We basically told everyone in the world that geography no longer matters because we will take care of it. And so countries that lacked a good geography and didn't have mapable rivers and didn't have large chunks of arable land so they could feed themselves, all of a sudden could participate in the global network that they didn't have to fight for. However, the system is fragile. Only the USA has the necessary demographics, military might and food security potential to go smoothly into the future. The second section of this book is about transport. The key idea here is that container ships will be vulnerable and often fail to reach their destinations in a deglobalizing world. Yeah, so we're going to have supply chain problems for years. It it appears. Okay. Main topic I want to talk about. There's just an amazing interview in Tablet Magazine. So I just just spotted today. It's by the husband of the the bloke, the husband of the woman who edits. Alana Newhouse is the editor of Tablet Mag. Husband is David Samuels and she's published this great interview with Edward Lutvak, who is a 79 year old geopolitical strategist and it's called Three Blind Kings. So it's about Biden, Putin and Chairman Xi in China. So this is Edward Lutvak just before Russia invaded Ukraine February 24th. So not enough troops to occupy Ukraine. This is a disaster. Venus Putin. This is the end of Putin. Edward Lutvak tweeted. So he tweeted that before the fighting. So he said Russia is invading Europe's biggest country with very small forces that counted as 150,000 only by including things like dentists. The actual troop level is more like 110,000. So February 25th, Edward Lutvak says that the careful poker player Putin who won Abhijei Abhijei Bajia, South Ossetian Crimea without any fight has gone to the roulette table and put everything there. This is the end of Putin. And at the same time, Edward Lutvak is having a fight with the intelligence community. So the head of the CIA is Edward is a Mr. Burns, who's a sensible chap. Burns just published a memoir about a year ago. The director of national intelligence who comes from the CIA is not a sensible chap. What they forecast for the war was the Russians move Zelensky escapes, the Ukrainian government dissolves and the Ukrainian army leaves without orders and is left without orders and doesn't fight. So that was the estimate of the US intelligence community, right? The US intelligence community has been wrong about almost everything. This was the estimate of the FSB, right? The Moscow equivalent of the CIA, the Russian equivalent of the CIA, I think is the FSB intelligence agency, a better FSB intelligence is the Federal Security Service of Russia. Yep, I got that right. Right. So both the Moscow, the Russian and the American intelligence services both believe that Russia would just roll over Ukraine. They both believe that Ukraine was just an inherent part of Russia. Now, the SVR, the Foreign Intelligence Service in Russia did not believe these things. So it's interesting that the American and Russian these intelligence agencies had exactly the same estimate. And Joe Biden notoriously offered to evacuate Zelensky. So how did these intelligence agencies get things so wrong? So military intelligence advisers both on the Russian and the American side all belong to the same church. Wow, I'm sounding like Josh Randall now. So this church preaches about fourth generation warfare, which is postmodern information warfare. It's it's non-kinetic. Kinetic is when people get shot. I said this is non-kinetic. So supposedly the Ukrainian soldier would just open up his iPhone and he would be able to function mentally anymore. His morale would collapse and he'd lay down his weapons and he'd surrender. And both intelligence agencies believed this nonsense. So the Russians were trying to carry out a classic coup de main. So coup de main is like a coup d'etat, except that it's done in a foreign country. So the Russians helicoptered these troops to Kiev. They come from an air assault brigade. They're vaguely elite forces. They land by helicopter in the Antonov airfield, which is not Kiev's airport. Kiev's real airport is on the other side, but they land there because the Antonov factory makes big planes. So there is a long runway. The Antonov factory is closed. So they think, OK, we'll just rock up there. And then we'll be off to start landing our planes. Now they're met by some middle age Ukrainian guards who telephone their headquarters. We call the presidency and the defense minister of the mayor of Kiev say whoever you are, wherever you are, go to the Antonov field. Go there. Single soldiers, units, guards, go there by whatever means you can go by motorcycle, go by taxi. So you've got a disparate group of guards, soldiers and policemen and they attack this cohesive elite Russian unit with automatic weapons. Now you think that what would happen is a massacre. But what happened was that the Ukrainians won. They're absolutely ferocious. They bounce the Russians right out of the airfield into the woods. So the Russians who came by helicopter wanted to secure the runway for the arrival of the airborne troops who were loading up in the illusion 76ers, which are the big Russian aircraft, they were going to bring in more troops. So with the first 1500 or so they expected to be driving into Kiev with these eight wheeled armored vehicles that come straight down from Belarus going across the border. It's a fast vehicle that can drive 80 kilometers an hour. So once the airborne troops get off the planes, they'd get on these vehicles, they drive to the center of Kiev, they capture all the key headquarters just as a coup d'etat. That was the plan. And there's this very long 40 mile long armored column being assembled at the border to do the triumphal entry into Kiev and impress everyone there in the world by this endless procession of armored vehicles. So making the Russian army look immense. Armored vehicles will just be streaming through central Kiev in an unending parade for hours. Every reporter in the world will say, my God, the majesty. Well, this is the column that got stranded and picked apart by drones. So all these fantasies were based on the idea that we're now in cyber war, cyber war in non-kinetic war. It's just all information war, just doing it all on social media. And this would do the job. None of it worked. So the Ukrainians called each other. They jumped in the vehicles they got there and they drove the Russians away. And the ceremonial victory column it got struck badly. It's when you've got a 50 ton tank stop completely to restart it from zero to moving velocity uses a lot of fuel. So after a few stops and starts, they ran out of fuel. So it's supposed to be a rolling parade. It's all designed according to the theories of hybrid war, fourth generation warfare, non-kinetic warfare, going to crush the resistance. The Americans believe this. The Russians believe this. The German intelligence believe this. So the American intelligence community is now boasting about its involvement in the killing of 15 Russian generals. But President Biden immediately intervened, said shut it down. And you haven't seen the intelligence community boasting about that anymore. So why do educated people believe in such obvious stupidities like the crushing power of non-kinetic warfare? So David Samuels, the interviewer says it's the West War on nicotine. The massive brain outages that we're seeing throughout the West, particularly in America, are due to the war on smoking. So smoking makes people smarter and then kills them before they can become senile. So the social history of nicotine begins with the sharpening of the brain. So the author here, David Samuels, his solution is nicotine patches. So as it gives your brain the fix it needs, take away my nicotine patches and I'm immediately five to 10 IQ points stupider, which I can't afford. Sounds a little bit like me and Medafino. You want them now? Yeah, I'm permanently addicted to nicotine patches, which have the advantage of not causing a slow painful death from lung cancer. So an easy remedy for the stupidity of mankind is to go back to nicotine. So the intelligence assessment that forecast a swift Russian victory, right, that was shared with the Germans and the Germans believed it. So they said, we will not stop the certification of Nord Stream 2 because Putin will inevitably win. And Germany initially would not allow any 40 year old weapons to be sent to Estonia to go to Ukraine. Because that was all based on the German belief that this war was going to end in 24 hours. Didn't exactly work out that way. And the German assessment was based on the US assessment, which was pretty much identical to the domestic Russian intelligence assessment. It's kind of like the American intelligence assessment. The couple would hold out for two years without any US assistance, even last two weeks. So the CIA always has a brief at the White House, who is usually a rather attractive woman who packages things to make presidents happy, but not necessarily based in reality. So according to Edward Ludvig, that the CIA and the intelligence community in America gets things so wrong, so often the sufficient grounds for emptying out their buildings, fumigating them thoroughly, restaffing them with people who are actually interested in foreign countries, therefore know a language or two really well and have traveled the world. Right. Seven ideas of Peter Zion's new book. Through the Bretton Woods Era, safe transport across oceans benefited the entire world and grew increasingly efficient. In a world without the USA controlling everything, these efficient, big, slow container ships will be vulnerable, especially in times of war. As you can see in this graphic that demonstrates the actual insurance necessary for these large ships in times of war. There will be three major problems at Zion's sites. The first is piracy, as we all know. The second is privateering, which is piracy that's allowed by states. And then finally, there will be state piracy. There will be actual states out looking to take goods from other states in order to meet their needs. This will hurt everyone by undoing the efficiencies of the past. However, it will especially hurt importers, most of all China, who has benefited the most from this globalization and will have the most to lose in a world where shipping becomes harder. The third section is finance. And the key idea is that demographics will catch up with global finance. See, finance has evolved from using things for money like barley and then shekels and the metals and finally fiat currency and this ease of transacting has accelerated economic growth and allowed nations to paper over their problems by printing more fiat currency. Problem in China is that we don't actually know how bad the non-performing loan situation is. So the official non- performing loan ratio is at the end of last year was 1.89 percent. So that means for every hundred dollars worth of loans that banks have have made about a dollar eighty nine of those are bad. Now, that figure absolutely defies productivity. Nobody believes that's what the actual figure is. I mean, the United States is not performing loan figure is is one point one percent. The Germans are one point seven percent and China's is one point eight nine percent after what is literally the longest running and the biggest expansion of debt really in one history. So the question here is really how bad is the debt problem and it's a complete black box. Demographics will catch up with hyper financing. So I notice we got this baby formula shortage, which is dominating the news. Why don't women breastfeed their own baby babies? Like there's something wrong with women who can't be bothered to breastfeed their own kids. It's inconvenient. It it's just the height of selfishness and it's bad for kids. Psychological health is bad for their physical health. It's bad for their IQ is not to get breastfed. I getting breastfed usually adds like two or three points to your IQ level, according to some studies I've read. Demographics in terms of how old your population is will determine their earning, spending, investing and tax paying through the lifespan of citizens. When retirees draw from a system and there are too few young people earning and paying taxes into that system, the system will crash. If the system is shrinking, a capitalist way of life that depends on constant economic growth may actually become irrelevant. And science suggests that it may need to be replaced by a new way of managing the remaining capital. OK, we're not going to end capitalism. I mean, the idea that the end of globalism means the end of capitalism is absurd. I mean, capitalism simply means that capital has the right to move around where it can get that the the biggest return. So then the Edward Ludvac interview talks about President Xi in China. Where did he lock down Shanghai? Because he's not able to do anything else. Right. Like he's tanked the economy. He realizes how vulnerable his country is so he can't have, you know, overseas adventures. And so the one thing that he thinks he can get prestige from is by effectively dealing with covid, but Chinese vaccines don't work. So he locks down Shanghai, a city of 25 million people place with enormous concentration of factories that serve Western supply chains, especially at the higher ends of the technology ladder. And you lock it down for several months and you say people can't leave their apartments. You stop all these factories dead. Ships can't go in and out of the port. I mean, think about the value that you're destroying these three months. It's absolutely enormous that these Western companies and countries are going to move their production elsewhere. Right. So. G looks around, decides that income disparity in China has become excessive. So he starts taking action in regard to successful businesses and in regard to the real estate market. Right. So that slows down the Chinese economy much more than he expected. Then G takes on high tech largely because of his personal jealousy of Jack Ma. So when Jack Ma, the founder and head of Ali Baba holds a convention. There are 20,000 people who are absolutely enthusiastic about him, which is very unlike the meetings of the Chinese Communist Party. So Jack Ma's followers go crazy when they see him and President G is jealous of that. So he moves against Ali Baba and he moves against big business and then he tanks the economy. Right. He's threatened by the success of Chinese billionaires. His own prominence is threatened by it. He's jealous of these guys. So Chinese business gets the message. They realize their money is no longer secure. They realize it doesn't buy the backing of the Communist Party anymore. They realize that G is a jealous and powerful God. So they withdraw their capital. So the Chinese economy starts slowing down and G has to look for new ways to claim glory. Like we all want to feel important. That's what tends to drive people a feeling of importance. Why do you think I do this show? Because having 18 live viewers just makes me feel so important. So G wanted to be the guy who defeated the virus. So that's why he took personal charge in Wuhan. That's why he's using these extreme measures. He's trying to replicate his success in Wuhan on a bigger scale in Shanghai because that is all that's left to validate his rule and to provide him with some glory. Now he can't take Taiwan because he realizes in the world's reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, if he does anything forceful at all, bulk carriers will stop arriving in China. So the Ukraine was taught Chinese Communist Party that the G7 runs the world's economy. In particular, America runs the world's economy. Now if you don't hear anything more about the rise of China and how China is just going to dominate. That's just completely fallen out of public discussion. So America essentially decides how the world economy runs. You can extend that say the G7. And if the G7 decides ships don't arrive in the ports of China, you don't even need the US Navy to blockade China. You need two destroyers from India or Australia because the Chinese Navy by and large can't go more than 100 miles from short. So two destroyers in the Indian Ocean could cease energy imports into China and half the population would starve six months later. So all these bulk carriers that come from San Diego, Los Angeles, Australia, Brazil would stop arriving. Right. If the animal feed does not arrive in China within three months, they have to slaughter all their pigs. There'll be no more eggs, no more chickens, no eggs, no milk, no meat. So China is incredibly weak. Now David Samuel's perspective is let's talk about the third week king in the United States. And that is bizarre. America is only growing more powerful as each year goes by. We're not living in a more depolar world anymore. Contrary to John Misham, we're living in a unipolar world where America is ever increasingly the biggest gorilla vis-a-vis its rivals. So David Samuel says, when I look at America from the outside, see a country in the throes of implosions about race and gender identity. You have the universities and other institutions going woke, which is a doctrine of blind obedience to a party line established by people in 95 percent illiterate. Can't remember what they decreed last week. Policies are product of hard and dogma and fails. Gas prices are crazy. All right. You think gas prices in America are crazy now? These are the normal levels of gas prices for people in Europe and Australia for the last 50 years. America usually has gas prices that are about half the price of gas in Europe and Australia. Nearly 50 percent of children in urban school systems have stopped going to school. Wow. Where are we going to get our doctors, our lawyers and our dentists and our rocket scientists? You have a so-called elite that spits hysterical contempt for the people in whose name they ostensibly rule. Well, there are elements of that. People are complicated. Right? We do have large swaths of our elite who do periodically spit hysterical contempt for the people. But they also donate billions of dollars to help the people. They also do some awesome things for the people and they do some terrible things. The elite that makes bags just like I am and just like you are. And David Samuel says the American aristocracy is the worst aristocracy on earth. They're bad men as bad taste, bad art, hostile to religion and the popular arts. Their concept of largesse is to establish a foundation to combat climate change by instructing the yokels not to eat meat. Last aristocracy that showed this kind of contempt for its own people was the French in the days of Marie Antoinette. This is a vast exaggeration. What are other countries that have a vastly superior elite? The American economy is so successful because of the top five percent of our population is so smart and hardworking. Now elite does some terrible things. They do some awesome things. They pay hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes. California has about a hundred billion dollar budget surplus because of large part tech elites who do business in California. Now David Samuel says echoing our friend half-collision. As far as I can tell the person who's in charge of the main parameters of U.S. government policy commutes between his mansion in Colorado and his mansion in Hawaii and his way to becoming a billionaire talking about ex-president Barack Obama. But it is forbidden to speak of him. Good luck finding a single news story that how the ex-president of the United States communicates with his prodigies in the White House of his zips back and forth on the private jets of his billionaire friends talking shit about poor Joe Biden. What else is he up to these days watching ESPN? So Edward Lutveck responds in the Obama White House. Everybody made fun of Joe Biden. He'd show up at these meetings say these ridiculous things like the Afghan Army is a fraud and the people who made fun of him and now staffing the Biden administration. So Susan Rice is the domestic policy coordinator in the White House. Despite not having formally spent a single day of her career on domestic policy. Why is she there? Because Obama trusts her to faithfully relay his thoughts and desires when he has them. Obama got what he needed. He has his team directing the particular area of foreign affairs that he cares about, which is the Middle East. What does he need Susan Rice in foreign affairs for? So Edward Lutveck knows that Susan Rice was the one that was making fun of Joe Biden every day. Though Biden turned out to be far more correct about Afghanistan than all the other prominent members of Obama's foreign policy team. So a Biden a Biden was against the surge into Afghanistan. Biden was saying the Afghan armies are fraught. Biden turned out to be right. Or these Obama brainiacs turned out to be wrong on Afghanistan. Every time Biden wanted to say something, Susan Rice would cut him off and treat him with contempt. So when Obama insisted he has to have Susan Rice in the White House, he created the Domestic Policy Council and put her there. So David Samuel's response. Robert Malley runs Iran. Brett McCurk runs the rest of the Middle East. McGurk's Gimp in Syria. Michael Ratney is the new US ambassador to Saudi Arabia. So what base did Obama leave uncovered? Obama was never in the weeds policy guy. He liked to pick and choose what he liked from the menu. And he's done that. He's happy to let Biden fail so it makes him look even better by comparison. You miss me yet. Who do you like better? Biden, Trump or me? Barack Obama. Miss me yet? Obama's problem is he's too impatient and ego driven to let others make the comparison. He has to drive at home himself by showing up at the White House calling Biden the vice president, leaving the poor man talking to the drapes while everyone buys for photo ops with his royal anus. The last Democrat who wasn't a pathetic abject failure. So Obama's Achilles heel has always been his egotism. He's like the prep school cool kid version of Donald Trump. Now Edward Luftbach says that Kamala Harris is much more conservative than people give her credit for. She lost out in California politics. She wanted to send to jail welfare mothers who live from federal money and don't send their children to school. When she was running for president, blacks wouldn't vote for her. Word spread that she was anti black because she was anti criminal. Her father, who is black, is the most conservative person in the world. He made his one and only intervention during the campaign. In some regular interview, asked Kamala Harris, what's your attitude to marijuana? And she said, I'm from Jamaica. The father went and called the radio station said, if my daughter come within a mile of marijuana until she got married, you would have slapped her. So Kamala's mother is a Tamil Brahman, a Brahmal Brahman. He's the people now being attacked all over California because the other Indians say that if you're not a Tamil, don't get any jobs at the top. So Kamala Harris comes from an elite conservative background. So Edward Lookback says he was a professor, a Nimitz professor at Berkeley. And he heard that Kamala Harris as a black father was the most conservative person in the department in Berkeley. So if she ever becomes president of the United States, a lot of people are going to be very surprised about how non-liberal she is. And Edward Lookback concludes, I recently met the only Hispanic member of Joe Biden's cabinet. Right, it's Angelo Mayorkas. He's from Cuba, right? You know what language he speaks, Romanian, in addition to English. So the only Hispanic member of the Biden administration is a Romanian Jew. Capital flight will continue and accelerate and inflation will continue to rise. We were always going to have an inflationary pulse here and it is going to last until such time that we probably double our industrial base. I don't see that process being done until at least 2027. The fourth section is about energy. And the key idea here is that the global energy market is unsustainable and a world with less energy will ultimately de-industrialize. So much of our energy comes from oil, as Ian points out that oil markets currently demand complex operations that can't tolerate big changes. Just examine gas prices in response to a single event like the invasion of Ukraine. The Brentwood system allowed countries to trade economics for security. It was a straight up butter for guns swap. We will pay you to be on our side. This made the USA so prosperous that it had to import oil at first. But in Iraq in 2003 pushed prices to $150 per barrel by 2008. Zion points out that lucrative oil markets brought new entrance and ultimately the shale revolution. Then the USA returned to being a net exporter no longer needing to control the straight up for moves for oil from the Middle East. And that's that the straight up for moves are no longer something that we need to protect for our own sake. We're protecting it more for our partners now because we are not so dependent on the oil in the world. And now our partners are so we still protect straight up for moves to get oil moving out of there to get it to our partners economically. But we as the US no longer are so dependent on having that function. This is something that makes for a very fragile position when we don't need to keep it all going and brings us back to point number one, the Bretton Woods agreement. Do we really need to keep all of these shipments protected for the rest of the world? This leads other countries to struggle for control of oil. OK, let's check in with Tucker Carlson. We could spend five hours a week just replaying video of people committing awful crimes against strangers on the streets of America and say we don't do that because it's depressing and it serves no real purpose. You get the point, but we did tell you the story a while back about a homeless man accused of throwing a woman downstairs out west. And we wonder whatever happened with that story. Well, Jason Rantz is here with an update for us tonight. Hey, Jason. Hey, Tucker, why get a minimum wage job as a barista when you can assault random women and actually get double the salary every single day that Alexander J is in jail. He's making $250 thanks to a ruling by a judge. Her name is Joanna Bender. She claims his due rights process are being violated. J is a homeless prolific offender. He's accused of throwing a 62 year old nurse down a flight of concrete stairs at a light rail station near downtown Seattle. This was back in March. And what's terrifying about it was completely random. And as you can see from this footage, he doesn't simply throw her down the stairs. He goes to where she lands, picks her up, and then throws her down again. She ends up breaking three ribs as well as her clavicle. Now detectives end up making an arrest in spite of a lack of interest from the media. Then J gets charged in King County Court, but the judge deemed him incompetent for trial, ordering him into a three-month session of inpatient psychiatric treatment. However, Democrats in Washington State repeatedly chose not to prioritize funding for the State Department of Social and Health Services over the last several years. As a result of that, they don't actually have a bed for him. So now, because he is accused of being so violent, he's being basically put on a waiting period for Western State Hospital. They're better equipped for a case like this. Lovely. So great comment in the chat. Dentists are always trying to upsell you for dental work. You can't trust most of them. I don't know if it's most, but dentists really are the least professional and least trustworthy of any of the medical professions. And I'm linking here to a great essay in The Atlantic Magazine from May 2019. The truth about dentistry is much less scientific, much more prone to gratuitous procedures than you may think. So guess what? People want to make money, and often they want to make money at your expense. And this is true for many dentists. Many dentists prescribe useless procedures, even damaging destructive procedures to get you to pay more money. And when you're in a dentist's chair and they're, you know, banging around in your teeth and you're lying back in a kind of an awkward position and they're looming over you, it's very infantilizing and there's a natural tendency to just go along with what they say. Just like when I was converting to Judaism, that was part of me that became, you know, very passive and very afraid of what people in authority would do. And the more they smelt my passivity and the more they smelt my fear, the more they took advantage of me and the more they bullied me and the more I stood up for myself, the less that they bullied me. So you can't let dentists bully you. They tell you to floss every day and there's no evidence that the flossing does much good. So dentistry, not terribly scientific, not a lot of evidence-based medicine going on in dentistry and many, many dentists will try to get you to undergo painful, damaging, dangerous procedures so that they can line their pockets. So definitely read this terrific essay in The Atlantic, The Truth About Dentistry. Now, on the other hand, you may have a good honest dentist and so for that, you should be grateful. All right, back to Peter Zion's new book. If you're anyone else, this is a bit of a problem because the Iranians and the Soviets have some very strong opinions about who should be in charge of that part of the world. And if the United States is not there keeping them separate or picking sides, I expect this to boil up into another crisis on a scale roughly similar to that of the Ukraine work. While there's some hope for green energy, Zion points to its many limitations and believes that the world with less energy from oil will ultimately deindustrialize, de-civilize and burn more coal, which may actually increase global carbon emissions. The fifth section is about industrial materials and the key idea here is that materials are how the world really ends. Materials have defined history, the Bronze Age, the Stone Age, the Iron Age. It was actually the Black Death and scarcity after that that brought about new techniques to work with materials and create materials that have enabled the industrial age. Industrial materials have unique geographies of access, so piracy will grow to access things that we can't access in our native countries. While oil is vulnerable and critical, any green tech energy system will have many more material inputs and each of those will have critical chains of supply to cover, making green tech even more exposed to a lack of materials than oil. All right, here's Takkaran, inflation nation. So the chairman of the Federal Reserve and the secretary of the treasury assured the country that inflation was not a big deal because it would be, quote, transitory. Calm down, America. But then Larry Summers, the former Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton, the former head of Harvard, stepped on their message. Summers predicted inflation would stay because obviously it would. You didn't need to be a genius and he's not to know that. But now, because partisan politics is the most important thing in the Democratic Party and in Washington, Summers is blaming inflation on America's suffering working class on people who are at the Capitol on January 6th and anyone who doesn't think it was an instruction. It's their fault. Watch this. I think the banana Republicans who are saying that what happened on January 6th was nothing or okay, are undermining the basic credibility of our country's institutions and that in turn feeds through for inflation because if you can't trust the country's government, why should you trust its money? Imagine that guy's table manners. But there's partisanship at a level that's self-discrediting and insulting. January 6th deniers a responsible for inflation? Charlie Gasprino is a senior correspondent at Fox Business and a serious person by contrast, Charlie, thanks for coming on. So you think if Summers is smart, but like what was that? You know, I thought that was initially the onion, right? But it's not, it actually came out of his mouth. So it's probably one of the most patently dumb things I've ever heard about economics. About economics, forget about coming from an esteemed economist, but you know why he's doing this. I mean, Larry Summers is now being quoted by Republicans and it's a campaign message too that Joe Biden screwed up the inflation business that we have inflation now. So many of these people like Larry Summers in certain contexts, they're much less partisan. So many of the partisan Democrats that you see, you know, on TV fighting for the Democratic Party or partisan Republicans or partisan talk show hosts in person, they're a lot less partisan. But because the situation, the context, the institution that they're working in, it pushes partisanship in many circumstances. But put them in a different situation, different context, a lot of the partisanship melts away. So the people that you see on TV, and unnecessarily like that in real life, you can often have a much more reasonable conversation with someone in real life. So there are many perils to the e-personality, but sometimes people can check out from their e-personality and become more human. Now that isn't transitory. Because Larry Summers said early on that the spending, not even necessarily the Fed, he mentioned the spending that the Biden administration was jamming through a democratically controlled Congress would lead to massive inflation. And he was right. And now he's... So I've had very good experiences with dentists. Okay, I am not aware of ever having an unethical dentist. So I love my dentists. I'm very grateful for my dentists. We love our dentists, don't we? All right, there are great dentists out there. All the dentists I've had have been wonderful. So a question in the chat. How much credit for Luke Ford's photogenic teeth goes to professional dentistry versus how much to diligent personal hygiene? And I think a lot of it goes to good dentistry. Probably more goes to genetics. And maybe I've done some good things as well. Playing catch-up in his own party. And that's essentially what this is. That's what everybody on Wall Street's saying. Well, I'm sort of sympathetic that in the sense that it wasn't just the Democratic Party that did this. Mitch McConnell did it. Everyone who signed off on these budgets, everyone who thought quantitative easing could go on forever. I mean, this is a bipartisan problem. Why doesn't he just say that? Because that's true. Why blame it on January 6th? Yeah, you know, everything is January 6th. That's a talking point right now for the Democratic Party. And Mightypox says Luke has a useful heuristic. You did it to yourself, fix yourself. Yeah, it is not always 100% perfectly true. But generally speaking, we have a very significant, we played a very significant role, not just for where we are in life, but how we then see the world. We see the world not as it is, but as how we are. So the philosophy of realism says that what we see is real, right? But most forms, most thinkers about epistemology are not realists. They don't believe that we see what's real. Most schools of thought in epistemology are that we see through particular perspectives at certain times and places and that our own experience and our own biases profoundly affect what we think we're seeing. Now, I am a realist in this sense, right? I think that the world we see out there is largely real because we're not running into light poles and we're not getting punched out most of the time like if you don't think reality is real, let me punch you in the stomach. But most schools of epistemology, most thinkers on epistemology do not hold with the philosophy of realism, which says that the world that we see through our eyes and hear through our ears and sense with our feeling abilities, that that is real, right? That's the philosophy of realism. Luke seems patronizing sometimes because he's arguing with himself. It isn't about you. Yeah, exactly. So Josh Randall got very offended, but I wasn't saying anything about Josh Randall because I've never met Josh Randall. I barely know Josh Randall and I see an element of his persona on the show, but I am reacting to a certain presentation and then giving my deconstruction about what I think is going on with the personality, the virtual epersonality that's being presented. But I know Josh Randall took great offense. He thought I was attacking him personally and he says, you don't know anything about me. It's true. I don't know anything about you. I'm reacting to your epersonality that is very common, that seems to probably be the dominant personality in my chat. And I am deconstructing that public persona and what seems to be operating behind that public persona, as I understand it and could be wrong. I love Luke. When he's discovering interesting political thinkers and historians, I put up with the self-help for the occasional Meersheimer. Plus, he's a good glimpse into the right-wing sphere. Thank you. Do you think your dentist prefers insurance payments so he can get as much as possible out of you? Well, yeah, I have dental insurance and so I'll go to the dentist. So I'll have like six cavities. I mean, usually I won't have any cavities, but let's say on occasion I may have had like three cavities and I think it's cost me like $50 a cavity, but I trust him. I've had a very good experience with him. He'll show me the evidence and yeah, so yeah, there are people I trust. I don't know how you navigate in life without trusting some people, right? It doesn't mean you give them absolute 100% trust in all circumstances, but for practical living there's no alternative but to trust people that, how would you drive down the street without trusting the people around you again to obey the rules of the road? Now, you wanna take all reasonable precautions that you can, but you would just, you would be unable to drive in Los Angeles or any major city if you didn't trust that people were basically getting to abide by the laws of the road. At the same time you take the reasonable and responsible precautions you can, but there's no way that you can navigate the world without constantly putting your trust in people. You just have to be selective about who you put your trust in and in which circumstances you put your trust in. Yeah, trusting is good for your mind often. So you don't bloody know me, Ford. I am so mad at these live streamers. I am so mad. I'm coming back here a thousand times if I have to. They don't know me. They're a bunch of gimps and losers. But maybe post COVID, we are on the verge of our own black death sort of effect. Maybe there will be a renaissance and we'll have some sort of breakthrough again in material sciences just as we did the kicked off the industrial age. Steel is most crucial for industrialization. Expect shortages of steel and expect the US Gulf Coast region. Yeah, I think human innovation is going to end. All right, I have a little more faith in human innovation than Kenneth Brown. To increase its nothing capacity. This is really how the world ends. Peter says that no amount of financing can overcome the physical absence of materials. The sixth section is about manufacturing. The key idea here is that the United States of America has sacrificed its industrial potential to maintain the Bretton Woods system. And now the USA is poised to rapidly expand its industrial base. Supply chains run on tight margins, razor thin margins, small changes and break supply chains. Hence the delayed release of Peter's book. It's actually due to a paper shortage that the book was delayed until June. The supply shortages of 2021 were mostly due to a surge in demand but the shortages of the future will be due to a lack of supply. Labor variation is crucially manufacturing for each scale level to produce specific components at maximum efficiency. Without globalization, manufacturers can't access a wide range of labor variation, thus decreasing their efficiency and decreasing supply. NAFTA, however, will access varied labor within the continent and may include Columbia in the process. And that probably can be recreated in the US-Nexca border region, especially with a little bit of help from Columbia. The science is... So you're probably wondering how on earth 40, how on earth do I restore balance to my polyamorous relationship, right? It's not necessarily very easy to do but let's get some wisdom here from Alex Kudahakis. How can you about change all month long on all of our social media platforms since we're headed into a new year and a new year always exemplifies change? Our quote of the day today is we are not the same persons this year as last nor are we, nor are those we love. It is a happy chance if we changing continue to love a changed person and that's by Somerset Mon. So I'll read that again. And also remind you that if you put questions into the Q&A box, Elisa will get those to me and I'll be able to see them in persons this year as last. And when you think about that we're actually changing moment by moment, day by day, month by month, year by year, sometimes in imperceptible ways and sometimes in really quite radical ways that we notice. Then he says, nor are those we love. So while we're changing moment by moment and sometimes radically, so are the people around us that we love. And it is a happy chance if we changing continue to love a changed person. And I honestly think that's where a lot of committed couples get into trouble is that we sort of if we're getting married in a traditional way we're sort of tethered to this happily ever after story without any space for I'm going to love you in the face of you changing and in fact I want you to change and grow. And I wanna challenge myself to be able to tolerate those changes and that growth so that we can grow together and change together even though it may have us going in different directions sometimes. That's not the traditional model of marriage that most of us are fed. So this idea that we're gonna change and those that we love are gonna change and we're gonna change together makes for a very interesting life together and certainly a challenging one as well. And change literally means to alter. Yeah, so how do you handle it when your favorite live streamer changes is opinion on hot button issues? To transform, to exchange or substitute something out like when we talk about, oh, I need a change of scenery. Have women ever tried to change me? Yes, I remember this one girl gave me a book called The Givers and the Takers. She was of the conviction that I was much more of a taker than a giver. What are other ways they've tried to change me? They tried to get me to turn down things I say. They've tried to get me to be more polite and socially acceptable. Try to get me to listen more, take more care with our dress, probably be nicer, be more conformist. But if we're in the business of transformation and change, that means nothing is really staying the same. And I think for me, one of the most clear examples of this has been being in this pandemic for almost two years now. It seems like I entered the pandemic in a certain way and I was in a certain body at that time and I was feeling certain things. I was very, very stressed out. I recall that 2019, February of 2019 was a very busy year for me professionally. And when everything stopped, I didn't realize how exhausted I actually was. And I know I'm not alone in this realization. A lot of people felt that. And not only that, we came into the pandemic with a certain socio-political culture or vibe going on and we're coming out of it in a very different world. Many, many things have changed over these last two years. And so the world has changed, our culture has changed, we're changed and how do we embrace that change? And what of it do we like? What of it do we want to expand on? And what of it do we want to change or what don't we like about it? And I think whenever we go into the new year, it's useful to ask ourselves, what do I want to change going forward? What are my goals in other words for this new year? More so than resolutions because those seem to quickly fade or fall apart, but goals seem to be more substantive in this matter of change. And I think that transformation may very well be an essential quality of life. Certainly an essential quality of nature and we see it in the seasons. We see it especially even here in Southern California where it's been quite chilly for us. We're expecting a big brainstorm tomorrow when that happens, the temperatures drop and we all wear sweaters. And there's a sense of a seasonal change at this time, a time of introspection, a time of being indoors. Certainly with the Christmas holiday, there could be a coziness to that feeling as well, but it is the cycle of nature to constantly be transforming and transmuting and changing. And we have to trust and pay attention to the fact that we are going through these cyclical changes as well. And I think the seasons help us see it in more vivid color. So we need to keep a fluid sense of ourselves over time and really over a lifetime and... So, Abracad's guy, not just a movie, it's a movement, guys. I've had two experiences in my life that I really recall where there were older people who said something that really struck me. One was a yoga teacher and at the time I was much younger and she was probably my age. And she said, I want to be able to do more as I get older. And she met more with her body and certainly she could do more than anybody in the class and she was probably 20 years older than everyone in the class. And so that's a deep level of flexibility and a willingness to change. And then a friend of mine told me that her 90-year-old grandmother told her that she wanted to become more open-minded as she aged, not more closed-minded. And that was really powerful for me and it's something that I hold up as an aspiration. How do I start to be and challenge my judgments, my assumptions? How do I keep changing them? Change, change, change, change, change, change, change.