 And one of the great tragedies coming out of this is that the Black Lives Matter, you know, organization, entity is gaining massive credibility, much more than it had in 2015-2016 when these, when they were founded and when there were demonstrations at the time. This is much bigger. And they are gaining far greater support. And who is these Black Lives Matter? Now, it started out as a, I think, a just cause about police brutality and about police brutality, particularly against Blacks. Police brutality, police discrimination against Blacks, and there's plenty of empirical evidence. And I know there's counter evidence, but it seems to me that the weight of evidence is with those who say, yes, this is a real problem. All Blacks are stopped for routine, you know, car, automobile stuff. So not in violent neighborhoods, not where there is cause, you know, legitimate cause. Just if a white person or a Black person is speeding or doesn't have their taillights or doesn't have a, you know, something wrong with the car, has something wrong with the car, the stats show that it's much more likely that Hispanic or Black will be stopped. It's much more likely that that stop will become problematic. We've seen video of just horrific things. Now it's true, police brutality is often targeted at whites as well. And Black Lives Matter had the opportunity, I think it's the beginning, to stake out a claim against police brutality and maybe make the point, the more general point, the more general point that the police brutality is primarily targeted at Blacks, but they could have made the broader point about police brutality and reform in the police forces and changes to police routines, and they did not. They did not. Instead, they chose to embrace every item within a radical, nutty, leftist agenda and pick that up where they're in primarily more than anything else. Not only did they choose to focus only on police misconduct against Blacks, but they added, but they combined that with a, you know, leftist worldview. They combined it with an attitude towards hatred of capitalism, a hatred of everything that is America, a hatred of America itself, its institutions. Now it's true, those institutions have been bad for Blacks for much of American history, but instead of embracing the good within those institutions, the fact that those institutions have within them the ability to correct themselves, to fix themselves, they embrace the idea of destruction, of complete annihilation of those institutions and their replacement. They've embraced the most radical, crazy, nutty, left-wing agenda possible. All couched as, oh no, no, we're just here sometimes to demonstrate police brutality, to demonstrate discrimination against Blacks within the police. And unfortunately, more and more people are caught up in this, more and more people support them. The amount of money that flows in their direction flows from all kinds of sources. I know there's a big thing to attribute everything that the left does to George Soros, but the left has many resources, George Soros being just one of many. For example, over the last few days, Black Lives Matter has gained support from Twitter, which is using in its corporate description, the Black Lives Matter hashtag. For more than brothers, brands including HBO, Turner Broadcasting, TBS, HBO Max, who are all, who have all changed their Twitter names to Black Lives Matter, the hashtag has appeared in posts from retailers like Nordstrom, Ben & Jerry's, media companies like Tiktok, of course Tiktok is a Chinese company, so they're loving this, right? We'll talk about barbarians outside of America and how much they're enjoying what's going on right now. I don't see any comments blocked, so I'm not sure what, I'm not sure whose comments are blocked. I just see in the chat. So we're seeing this anti-capitalist organization, organization that embraces the destruction of businesses, embraces. You know, I remember the first time I really encountered Black Lives Matter in any significant way and I did a whole show about them, was during, I think it was 2016, and they were demonstrating in Chicago and they weren't demonstrating in front of City Hall, they weren't demonstrating in front of the police headquarters, they were demonstrating a police shooting against a police shooting. No, they were demonstrating on the million dollar mile, they were blocking the ability of people to go into stores, they were demonstrating with signs that were anti-capitalist, they were demonstrating capitalism, they were demonstrating against the ability of people to engage in peaceful exchange and trade. The fact that somebody died provided them with an excuse to go and demonstrate about all the issues in the world that go under their leftist agenda. And now they're being embraced by everybody, they're being embraced by company after company, the whole stories about how Citibank and companies all over the place are embracing Black Lives Matter without looking into the extent to which they're anti-capitalist, the extent to which they embrace identity politics, the extent to which they embrace intersectionality and everything that intersectionality involves, the fact that they embrace egalitarianism, the fact that they are anti-American in front of policy in almost every dimension and the fact that they're anti-American at its founding in terms of the founding ideas of America. So this is a field day for Black Lives Matter and everybody who supports it. This is a field day for the left and if Donald Trump actually puts the troops in the streets, actually brings troops into the streets, that will only strengthen, that will only strengthen the left, that will only strengthen their views, that will only make them more extreme, more radical, more committed to their anti-capitalist, anti-American ideas. But of course bringing troops into the streets would rally the barbarians on the right, the ones who reject the idea that there is such a thing as police brutality. They will always defend police no matter what they do, that have no problem with the fact that police discriminate against Blacks and they can't wait to see the federal governor soot itself by putting troops on the ground. So Vanda, I don't know what comment they blocked, I didn't block anything and I don't see anything being blocked so I'm not sure where the blockage is happening. Later be fixed and thanks to the support, Raya asks, why is it wrong for BLM, Black Lives Matter, to highlight the specific problems of police brutality against Blacks but okay for people to discuss Islamic totalitarianism instead of the border problem of totalitarianism? Well because, I mean again, I'm not saying that it's wrong of Black Lives Matter to highlight the specific problems of police brutality as long as they place it within the context of police brutality and as long as that is their agenda item. But if they are placing it in the context of, if they are arguing against or highlighting the idea of police brutality against Blacks and at the same time picking up an agenda which is authoritarian, which is anti-everything American stands for, which is not just focused on that but focused on a much broader political, social, economic agenda. That is what I reject. But even when it comes to, so even when it comes to this idea of focusing on brutality against Blacks, you really have to be convinced that that is indeed what is happening. I mean, did this policeman in Minneapolis kill this Black man because he was Black? Do we have solid evidence that that is the case? Or is he just an incompetent policeman who would have done this to anybody? And I don't know the answer to this. All the people that he has harassed in his past because he has a file, right? This guy has a file and it's shocking that he's still in a police uniform or what's still in a police uniform. Are all the things that he's ever been accused of doing badly related to the fact, to minorities? I mean, I don't know the answer to that but nobody cares because it's a Black man. It's immediately an issue of racism. Now, they're using this to highlight that there is racism out there and I get that there is. I get that there is. But is it as big of a problem as they indicate that it is versus just the idea that police are badly trained, that bad people are allowed to become policemen and a lot of stares policemen and that not only are they, some of them, many of them maybe begin it, but they're also just not good policemen. And instead of highlighting the importance of what police do, what we see today, I see Black Lives Matter, people on television saying what we need to do is defund the police. What we need is to start over. Really? You want to defund the police? The police are not important. Somebody asked this woman, Black Lives Matter woman, well, what about the looters? And she said the real looters are the police. They're the ones that have necessitated the looting by what they do. And they should just be abolished in a sense. They should be defunded. We should start by completely, really? It's not serious. So they're not seriously interested and this is my biggest problem with these demonstrations is there's no agenda there to solve the problem. You need a real solution. What are we going to do? On my problem yesterday with Amy, she proposed getting rid of legal immunity. Okay? One thing we can do. I mean, the standards for who gets to be a policeman should be raised, okay? And maybe salaries need to be raised at the same time. Maybe state and local government should stop spending money on things that government should not spend money on and instead focus the money more on police. Maybe they hire bad apples because nobody else wants to be a policeman. I don't know. So maybe we need to dedicate more resources to paying police better salaries so we can hire better people. But the functioning of police is a crucial function in our society and it's a very, very difficult one. What about advocating for getting rid of victimless crimes? I mean, if you got rid of the drug war and the war on immigrants, then you probably have too much police resources for all the rest of the crime. I mean, if you got rid of those two wars, so-called wars, the war on drugs and the war on immigrants, then you have plenty of police to keep the peace. And indeed, I'll repeat this again because I know that nobody wants to hear this, nobody believes it. Crime, primarily violent crime, is massively declined over the last 25 years. And if you got rid of the drug war, then violent crime would plummet. We would truly live in a safe society. We would need many more police. If you got rid of the drug war, then the gangs wouldn't have any reason for their existence. They would break up. They would have no revenue source. Their revenues come from drugs, nothing else. Many people who are today in jail would be released and you'd have a lot fewer people incarcerated and then you could be more selective, much more selective in terms of who you hire as a policeman. And then, of course, the police who you hire would not be corrupted by victimless crimes like immigration and like drugs. Police would stop chasing people who have not actually criminals by the definition of violating other people's rights. Police would then go back, maybe, to the old notion of the rule of law, objective law, a law focused on the protection of rights, not a law focused on preventing behavior that you don't like. Yeah, I mean, I would legalize prostitution as well, but you're not seeing the levels of corruption, the level of intensity, the level of violence surrounding prostitution as you do around drugs. I mean, there's nothing more destructive to both the police force and I think our culture particularly in certain neighborhoods than the drug war. And it's not that the consumers of the drugs live in those neighborhoods where drugs are traded and drugs are sold. The consumers often live in the nice part of town. You're not going to solve these problems of police brutality, of the kind of people the police hires, of the funding for the police. You're not going to solve them by following the agenda of Black Lives Matter. Black Lives Matter is not interested in true reform. They're not advocating true reform. They're not presenting actual ideas for what to do. So I would never march with them in the street because I would be marching for a Marxist, socialist, anti-capitalist, authoritarian agenda. I would not march with them in the street because there's no positive view that they articulate. There's no solutions that they present. I mean, to me, ending the drug war, increasing, you know, getting rid of the police immunity and increasing police training and increasing the qualifications that police would require to become a policeman should be at the top of any list of demands. But that's not what they're demanding. That's not what they're requesting. That's not what you find if you look at their website. They're all about social justice, social justice, which involves basically disintegration of the United States of America in terms of its essential characteristics and what made it great in its essential institutions. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual, would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning, any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, whims, or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism, and impotence, and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist brought. I noticed yesterday, when I appealed for support for the show, many of you stepped forward and actually supported the show for the first time, so I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity. Go to uranbrookshow.com slash support or go to subscribestar.com uranbrookshow and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not sure when the next...