Welcome everybody to your own book show. I don't know what day it is. Oh, it's Friday. No, it's Thursday today. Okay, June 14th. Sorry about that. I am in New York City. You guys, lucky guys are getting a tour of the hotel rooms I stay at around the world. And today I'm in New York City in a hotel room. You can't really see, but it's kind of small. Not that impressive. But welcome. So today I want to talk about North Korea. I want to talk about, you know, North Korea being an excuse, I think to talk about a lot of things related to foreign policy and my vision for a rational objective foreign policy, certainly not the foreign policy administration or for that matter, any administration ever. I think we need a completely different new approach to foreign policy, not a neocon foreign policy, not a what do you call it realist so called realist fall policy or any other of the existing acronyms we need something completely new. But you know, we'll really start off with a framework of career. And we'll see where that takes us. I also encourage you to ask questions. You can use the super chat to do that. So super chat on YouTube is where you can ask questions that will be my priority for looking for questions. And the idea is, let's focus on questions about North Korea for now. And we'll see where that takes us. If we want to go, if we're going to go to other places, then we can do that. We can do that again as well. But let's start with questions about North Korea on the on the super chat. Let's see anything else administrative. Yeah, just a reminder, we're getting close to the end of we've got another two weeks in June or in the middle of June. Really appreciate your support on Patreon. We're getting very, very close to the 6000 goal, which was my initial goal of 6000 a month net to me from Patreon. We're really close with like $200 short or something like that. So we probably need a raise to just given that they take about 10%. So about $220 to get to the $6000 goal. So appreciate any help you can provide to support the show. It's Patreon.com, your Unbrook show. Please support the show. If you get a value out of it. And if you want to see it continue and flourish and grow, then then please support it. And, you know, it helps keep me motivated to see people who are supportive and who put their money where their mouth is in terms of what they believe and in the kind of well, and want to want to see more of this show. All right, let's see. There was Patreon subscribe to YouTube still half of the people watching my videos on YouTube but not subscribe if not subscribed. So please subscribe if you're watching this. Oh, let's just jump in. Last week, it seems like a long time ago. No, it was this week. Maybe it was over the weekend. I can't even keep track of time. I apologize. I flew into Spain to San Juan, Puerto Rico late last or last night. I direct flight from Madrid. I drove to Madrid from Granada and then flew from Madrid to San Juan last night and then 7am this morning I was on a plane from San Juan to New York. So I'm a little sleepy, exhausted. So hopefully I can't keep my timeline straight. But anyway, as expected, as as he promised, Donald Trump with the motorist dictator of North Korea in in Singapore earlier this week. And, you know, according to Donald Trump, incredibly successful meeting. I can easily say that according to North Korea media and according to the really successful meeting, where, you know, they both seem to, I don't know, like each other, like each other, Donald Trump and a motorist dictator of North Korea. And there was a press conference and the North Koreans have agreed to denuclearize sometime in the future. Something, by the way, they've agreed to twice, at least in recent history, in writing with the signature of the motorist dictator of the time of North Korea. Donald Trump agreed to cancel some what he called war games, military exercises with South Korea, which are always offensive to North Korea, because they view it as a threat to themselves. At least that's what they pretend. So he's agreed to cancel those and has agreed to once the denuclearization, once there's a program to denuclearize to start loosening up the sanctions on North Korea, although there's evidence that those sanctions are already being loosened up. Donald Trump and his press conference admitted that the border with between North Korea and China has already become more porous in terms of violations of the sanctions in the months leading up to this summit. And we'll get to all of that. And that, you know, there's plenty that suggests that the sanctions are already being loosened and that goods and supplies are already starting to flow into North Korea. And I expect that that will intensify, that the Russians and the Chinese at this point will not feel bound by the sanctions, the UN resolution that imposed the sanctions, because hey, Donald Trump met with the motorist dictator. And by doing so legitimize the regime, there's a negotiation process. Everything is hunky-dory. Everything is fine. Why would we have severe sanctions on a country that is, you know, that there's such a good relationship with now? So, you know, I think this is so morally politically, in every respect, so offensive. The idea that the president of the United States would meet with the motorist dictator of North Korea is horrific.    And America has everything, everything to lose.  And there are a lot of issues here, but let me start with the issue of principle. And then kind of take your questions. And I see they're coming in, FDR met with Stalin and so on. So I'm going to take those. FDR with Stalin. We're going to take Nixon with Mao Zedong. We're going to take Ronald Reagan with Gorbachev. We'll take them each one. And we will discuss them. But let me say, and I know I keep getting told that I should not insult my audience, but I don't know, the response to this together with the response to tariffs is really demoralizing me, guys. I mean, what hope there is there to the world if the people who are following me, who I take it generally are pro-objectivism to some extent or another, not objective necessarily, but pro don't get the tariffs are bad and don't get the meeting with the murderous dictator of North Korea is worse than bad. It's downright evil. Anyway, I will explain. Hopefully I will convince some of you. And if I don't, then I'll be demoralized because hey, that's, that's, that's the way it is. So let's start with the principle and the principle is that when the good compromises with evil, only evil gains from that. The good has nothing to gain from evil. Evil does not create anything, does not produce anything, does not provide anything that the good can benefit from. There is nothing to be gained by the good compromising with evil.  Even the meeting, because you are sanctioning, you're giving legitimacy, you are making that evil equal to you. When you have the president of the United States, the greatest country in the history of the world, the only country founded in the moral principle of individual rights and the principle of individual freedom, meet, shake hands with, eat Korean food with, say nice things about a murderous 10-part dictator of an insignificant little nothing country. What does America have to gain from this? Oh, you might say they are going to do away with the nuclear weapons and that threat to the United States is going to go away. Well, two things there. One, yeah, they're going to get rid of their nuclear weapons. Let's talk in a few years. I mean, where do you live? If North Korea wanted to get rid of its nuclear weapons, denuclearize, they would have done it already. Why did they need, why didn't they need to meet with Donald Trump to do that? If North Korea, why would North Korea get rid of its nuclear weapons? What incentive in the world?  Why would you anything to weaken that army and to do away with those weapons? I mean, the idea that we would believe that that is really going to happen, the idea that we would trust that that is going to happen. And I'm not even talking about that. The history here, which goes back to Jimmy Carter of trying to negotiate with North Korea, not to start a nuclear program. And then once they started not to complete a nuclear program, and then when they completed not to deploy a nuclear program and not to build ballistic missiles in every single time they lied, they deceived, they contradicted themselves, they signed documents and then flipped on them right away. You can't, the point is if some evil, this is an important principle, if somebody's, you cannot trust anything they say. So even if by some miracle, they actually denuclearize, it still was wrong to meet because there's no way you could predict that they would denuclearize because they're lying SOBs. That's the evil. That's what evil is. It's a lie. So you can't trust the word this guy says, you can't trust a piece of paper he has signed. And remember, this is Donald Trump who just walked away from the treaty with Iran, which I support because you can't trust the word they say. But now we don't trust Iranians, but we do trust the North Koreans. When North Korea arguably is a more evil regime, more murderous regime, more torturous regimes than even the Iranians. And because they have nuclear weapons, you know, is a stronger regime than the Iranians. But then we trust. So how can we trust them? So why meet with them if you can't trust them? What are you going to gain by meeting with them?  He means what he says. Really? You can do that with people who are evil, people who are just, you know, they lie. That's what they do. They lie. That's a modus operandi. So what is the point of meeting with an evil person? And what do you gain? You gain nothing. What does he gain? Credibility, a sanction, propaganda. He gains, you know, within, you know, you should see the propaganda movie that the North Koreans are running in North Korea. Wow. You North Koreans, you're starving.  You should love him too. I wrote some way that this meeting is going to increase, increase the blood and suffering and torture of the North Korean people. And absolutely it's going to do that and decrease any chance, which was pretty small to begin with, of the North Koreans rising up against this bastard.  It gets stronger.  And people who call themselves objectivists don't drive me nuts. So the title in a commentary magazine article is Making a Monster Stronger. And it's right on. That's exactly what Donald Trump just did. He made a monster stronger. Now let's remember what North Korea is.  It is a country that has organized, organized famines to wipe people out. It is a country where people are malnourished. They're constantly dying from infections and parasites. It is a country where trying to leave it is your shot. It is one of the most, or it is the most evil regime on the planet today in terms of the way it treats its people. No country on the planet earth today treats its people as far as I can tell worse than North Korea. In addition to that, it exports weapons. It's exported nuclear technology. They were building a nuclear power plant and nuclear facility to build a nuclear bomb in Syria when the Israelis took that out. There's no question they have worked with the Iranians to provide them with new technology. If terrorists ever get a nuclear bomb, it's more likely to come from the Koreans than it is from the Iranians. They are brutal and an enemy of the United States. They have nuclear weapons. They are building ballistic missiles to be able to deliver those weapons to the United States. As commentary calls it, I mean, the summit was a coming out party for Kim Jong-un's. He arrives in Singapore. There's fanfare. There are people in the street calling out his name as if he's some kind of rock star. I mean, this is a guy who personally murdered people with, what is it, an anti aircraft gun. He's murdered his half-brother, his uncle, his ex-girlfriend. He's used chemical weapons and I think it was Malaysia or I think it was Malaysia or Indonesia in order to kill a relative. He's hundreds of thousands, if not millions of North Koreans have died under his hand and under his father's hand. And here he is, this monster. And commentary has it absolutely right. He's a monster. He's greeted by Trump. It's his honor. Trump salutes a North Korean general, a general who maybe gave the order to kill some of those thousands or tens of thousands or to starve some of those hundreds of thousands of North Koreans. Trump said he was an honor to meet Kim, a very talented man, talented at murder, at control, at power. And nobody cares, right? I mean, there's a few articles here and there, but nobody cares. And of course, what did Kim get out of this? He got out of it that he was treated as an equal. He got out of it that he is a world leader, meeting with the most powerful leader in the world, the leader of the free world. That's what he got out of it. He got this massive sanction and legitimization of everything that he does and everything that he's doing. Basically, he's okay. He's one of the boys. He's one of the club who can complain. What is this opposition? What are these people complaining about what's going on in North Korea? Donald Trump doesn't care. The Americans don't care. The people who are most concerned supposedly about freedom in the world don't care. The victims, the victims of the entire population of North Korea, now he's going to hear about what a wonderful leader they have and a wonderful leader not based on just the North Korean propaganda, but based on what the president of the United States thinks and how he treats it. Somebody's saying this is 4D chess. Really?  Monster is a strong word. No, this guy is a monster. Monster is too weaker word. A murderer responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands. There is no, there is no word better than monster, mass murderer, thug.  Yeah, the billionaire will set aside. One of these days will do a proper analysis of the business model that Donald Trump engaged in, the cronyism, the luck, just the manipulation of the legal system. All legit, good for him. But yeah, and president, isn't it pretty stunning that he is president?    We're back. Sorry about that. We discussed earlier. We discussed some of these issues. We started out with the principle you don't share with evil. You just don't do it. And I'll get to these historical examples and we'll deal with Stalin and we'll deal with Mao and we'll deal with all these things. But let me also make this point. I don't know. Some of you have maybe some doubts about the fact that this guy is a monster. I don't understand how you can argue that that is harsh. I don't understand that how anybody could say, Oh, well, he was born into the situation. You don't have to take the job of dictator if you don't want it. You don't have to want your dictator.  You don't have to starve your own people. All Kim need to do. If Kim really wants if he's really is a good guy, and he really wants to modernize North Korea and open it up to the world, then modernize North Korea and open it up to the world. All you have to do is stop building nuclear bombs, stop threatening the United States, stop threatening South Korea, move the troops away from the border and declare to the world, declare to the world that you are open for business and allow investments to and, you know, allow your people to move to take away the restrictions from people immigrating out or in, let people go to South Korea if they want, tear down this wall, goberchop that that was Ronald Reagan, right? Tear down the wall. All he would have to do. All he was have to do is tear down. Yeah, he would have killed yourself. Well, it's better sometimes to be killed yourself than to become a murderer. But even if that's the only option, then you know, do the do the right thing and open if you want to become leader, then open everything up. By the way, he didn't have to. He wouldn't have been killed. He could have easily left the country. He studied abroad as far as I know. And it's not like he's gone to Singapore and now he sees how wonderful the West is. He's been to the West as a young man. He was in the West. There was some hope that when he became dictator, he would be different than his father. Because he had been in the West, the same happened with Assad, the same has happened with many dictators, children. And yet they're just as murderous and brutal. Unfortunately, when they take the job as their parents are the fact that they were in the West doesn't mean they learned anything about what the West is and what it means.  It's a massive evasion of the truth.  So if you don't meet with them, what do you do? Well, what was the problem we were trying to solve? I mean, let's be real here. Let's ask the real question. Is North Korea threat to the United States? Is North Korea what is the likelihood that North Korea launches a nuclear missile on the United States? Zero? How about zero? Because what would happen if North Korea did that? Well, we obviously wipe out the regime. Are they suicidal? Do they believe in 72 versions or some other version of that? Why would they launch a nuclear attack on the United States? But what would be the logic why not just leave them to rot? Now, it's sad.  Why not just starve them to blockade them, continue the embargo that Trump started, get the Chinese and the Russians as they did involved and make, you know, starve them to the extent that you can.  Really? Were you really afraid that they were going to, and then what's the probability that the missile would actually hit the target they were aiming at and not just explode on the Pacific? And what's the probability then that the United States wouldn't shoot down the missile before it even reached anywhere dangerous? And why, you know, if Israel can shoot down the missiles that Hamas sends from Gaza, why can't the United States and why doesn't the United States have the technology? And if it does have the technology to shoot down the missiles, what is the problem? Yeah, it's bad that North Korea has nuclear weapons. It always has them. That ship has sailed. That ship has sailed. So he's not going to use it. So what is the desperation here? A desperate or is he desperate? I think he's desperate. So why not let him become more desperate? Why not let him become so desperate that he doesn't meet with Donald Trump, the leader of the free world. But he meets with some minion of Donald Trump and negotiates a complete disarmament of North Korea and opening up their borders and freedom to the North Korean citizens without getting the president ever involved. The proper thing to do with a bully, the proper thing to do with a monster is to humiliate them, not to give them pride, not to give them esteem. So what was the what was the problem? And if you really thought that they were going to launch an attack on the United States, I've laid out a military for North Korea. It would be complicated, it would be expensive, it would be difficult. But there is a military option to take out the North Koreans and to destroy them. The South Koreans would be the brunt of the casualties there. But you could militarily destroy them completely if it was necessary. I don't think it's necessary. I wouldn't do it. But blockade and starve them. You should do. Yeah, the Korean people will suffer. And they are going to suffer one way or the other. They're going to suffer more from from appeasing the monster because this only emboldens him, only makes him stronger, only shows him that he can get away with murder, that he can murder.   What do you think? What do you think the serial killer is going to do? I mean, now he knows the police are not going to get him. Now he knows he's not afraid of anybody at this point because you're negotiating with him instead of putting a bullet in his between his eyes. It only emboldens him. It's only going to make him more powerful.  So it's it's just unbelievable. And but people, I mean, I really think Donald Trump is it's turned into a cult. He cannot do wrong. People who I thought had common sense, the common sense is just out any kind of sense. Now, since it's not common, it turns out it's just out because it's Donald Trump and he plays for D chess and he's a really smart guy. Really? No, the really smart guy here is the monster from North Korea. He's the smart one. He just manipulated Donald Trump. Do you know that the North Korean presidents have been wanting to call them presidents and North Korean monsters have been wanting to meet with an American president forever. And all other presidents of the United States of America had the decency, the honor, the self esteem to turn them down. And this is the first president who is so low as to be eager to meet. All right, so let's talk about meeting with Stalin and meeting with Mao first. I mean, I don't think anybody should have met with Stalin. I think anybody should have met with Mao and we'll get to that. But let me first say that to compare the 10 part dictator of North Korea with Mao Stalin is a joke.  And Stalin was in the context of World War Two, a massive humongous war which the Nazis looked like they might win. And as an act of desperation, the Americans met with the communists in order to try to defeat the Nazis. I don't think it was right. I don't think FDR should have met with him. But I'm just saying the context, it was an emergency. Millions of people were dying. And the Soviet Union had a massive army that could be deployed. And then Mao Zedong, the reason Nixon met with Mao Zedong was in a sense to create a common front against the Soviet Union. Because in the early 1970s, the Soviet Union was just deemed this massive threat against the United States. And therefore, having opening a second front against the Soviets was going to weaken the Soviet Union. It was all a ploy in order to weaken them. And China was this massive country with significant nuclear weapons and a potential to compare either one of those situations. By the way, I don't think either one should have happened. And I'm against both of them, and I'll get to that in a second. But to compare either one of those situations to North Korea, North Korea, an insignificant country in the middle of nowhere that happens to have nuclear weapons probably can't really use them and certainly doesn't have the capacity yet to deploy them and then yet to deploy them accurately and against the mightiest military force in human history that should be able to knock every one of their missiles out of the sky and should be able to destroy the country if that was necessary. And had finally put together sanctions that seemed to actually be working against the North Koreans and making them desperate. And instead, instead, we sanction them and we negotiate with them and we meet with them and we honor them and we pretend that they were legitimate player in the world scene. Somebody's asking, is you're wrong, an angry resentful guy? No. No, it's just a really, really horrible topic. Can I get angry about these things?    It sucks when so many people can't see it.  All right, let's go to Stalin. No, I don't think FDR should have met Stalin. I think it was one of the biggest mistakes of the 20th century. I think it basically guaranteed the enslavement of tens of millions of people in Eastern Europe and in Russia itself to communism for 70 years. I think the deal FDR struck with Stalin is one of the most immoral deals in human history. I ran for one, thought that the best outcome should have been to let the Soviets and the Nazis fight it out to the death so that they destroy each other, they impoverished each other, and ultimately they both collapsed so that the United States might not have had to enter the war at all because both parties had been so weakened even without the United States entering it. Supplyings weapons to Stalin, but then granting Stalin Eastern Europe is one of the most immoral, one of the most evil acts ever. Ever. Just ask all those Eastern Europeans who lived under communism because of that. Because of that. Yeah, US did not have a border with Russia, so it didn't have to intervene. Didn't have to do anything there. Could have just let them rot. Could have let them fight it out without weapons. Let the Russian winter fight the Nazis. And if the Nazis took over Russia, so what? The story is that Patton was on the border of Czechoslovakia, said I could be in Prague in 24 hours. Telegram he got back from Eisenhower was, don't we've promised Czechoslovakia to the Russians, to the Soviets, to communism, to slavery. Thank you, thank you. That's what happens when you negotiate with evil. Tens of millions of people get enslaved. Millions of people die. Okay, let's talk about China and Nixon's. So let's start with this because there's a huge misunderstanding. What I've seen is people saying, Nixon went to China. As a consequence, China opened up and look today, it's wealthy and it's flourished and the Chinese people have benefited enormously, implying that the cause of relationship went. China opened up because Nixon went there. And everything is good since then. Opening up is good. I'm all for, you know, what happened in China. But that cause of relationship is just plain historically false, wrong, not true. Nixon went to China in 1974. From 1974 until 1978, China stayed an oppressive, dictatorial, totalitarian, murderous regime. It did not open up one iota. It did not turn to markets. It creates people. It did not change anything. It's only after Mao Tse-tung died. And after Deng Cha-pan manipulated himself into a position of power, did he start opening up China economically? And that is what has led to the Chinese prosperity. It had nothing to do with Richard Nixon. Zero, zilch nada. Nixon's visit to China did nothing. Did nothing to spur freedom in China. Nixon's visit to China did nothing to make China any better. Nixon should have never, ever, ever, ever gone to China, even as a strategic maneuver to outmaneuver the Soviets. He should have never gone. Now, Ain Rand wrote about this. So let me read you this. This is from Ain Rand, but it's quoted in an article that came out today, which is very good, on the New Ideal, the Ain Rand Institute, New Ideal website, newideal.ainrand.org, newideal.ainrand.org. You should all go there and you should read the articles. The articles are excellent. And this one was written by Ben Baer, philosopher. And he's quoting Ain Rand here. This is Ain Rand. That's what Ain Rand said about Nixon going to China and just replace Nixon with Trump. Although, again, I think it's it's it's it's compare China to North Korea in this context, but just just switching over and it works. Here's what Ain Rand wrote. Morally, it was impossible to watch all those gracious ceremonies, benevolent smiles, lengthy handshakes, cordial speeches, and hold in mind the actual nature of Red China. When kept alternating between two feelings, the kind of unreality and childish amusement one feels and the shock of returning to reality, the reality of China's terror, starvation, torture chambers, mass slaughter. I kept thinking of the thousands of men who tried to escape from China by swimming many miles and patrol boats to reach freedom in Hong Kong. What about them? I kept thinking. Whenever someone's other is one of those reading speeches about universal peace and love for mankind, isn't there anyone to defend them? The shock came from the realization smiling figure in the midst of the ghastly pretence on TV screen was the president of it. It is America that all the enslaved peoples of the world look up to as the symbol of freedom and as they laugh for the Chinese to see the American president drinking toasts to their jailers is so cruel a blow that in the name of humanity, no one should ever permit himself to deliver it. Ain Rand could write, oh my god, that is so good. But that's absolutely right. It is such an injustice. It is so immoral.  In this article by Ben Baer, he quotes from a video I posted also on my Facebook page from a young woman who escaped North Korea, Yomi Park. And I don't see, I don't know if you've seen other videos of Yomi Park, but she is a truly amazing young woman. She recounts the journey she had in trying to escape North Korea. She recounts what North Korea is like, the brutality of the regime and how difficult it was to get out of there. She's incredibly courageous, truly an amazing woman. And she taped this video response to the Trump meeting, how betrayed she felt, how betrayed everybody who's a freedom seeker in North Korea feels. I mean, she finally, she has escaped. But the people who are left in North Korea are now betrayed by the one beacon of freedom that still, or, you know, one would hope still remains in the world. So there is no beacon of freedom. And not only is he betrayed North Koreans, he's betrayed everybody who lives under an authoritarian regime who believes in freedom, who wants to believe that America still stands for freedom. So no, this is so Nixon should not have gone to China if D.R. should have non-negotiated with Stalin. And some people said, well, where were you, you're on criticizing Obama for going to Cuba? Well, first of all, I criticized Obama for going for Cuba. You can, you know, if you can find the tweets, they're there. Obama going to Cuba was horrific. Although again, it's not the same thing. But Obama should have never gone to Cuba. I mean, I can't think of them all. But Cuba is also not an explicit enemy of the United States in the sense of having missiles targeted the U.S. cities. North Korea is. You don't go and negotiate with an evil enemy. All right, what else do we have? Oh, well, then there was a press conference. I mean, this is about the monster. I'm quoting Donald Trump. Well, he is very talented. Anybody that takes over a situation like he did at 26 years of age and is able to run it and run it tough. I don't say he was nice or say anything about it. He ran it. Few people at that age could do it. Oh my God. Oh my God. Yep. Not everybody can be a monster. That is true. Not everybody can be a monster. No more attribution, not calling him out for the slaughter, not calling him out for the fact that his people are unfree. Yeah, I forgot to talk about Gorbachev. Let me talk about Gorbachev before we get to this. So, yes, two differences about Gorbachev. One is Reagan meeting with Gorbachev. Two differences. One Gorbachev is actually a one difference, but I still think Reagan should not have met with Gorbachev. Gorbachev was liberalized economy before Ronald Reagan met him.  He was already starting the reforms that ultimately I think helped lead to the breakup of the Soviet Union. In the Soviet Union was already getting weak. But again, there was absolutely nothing for Reagan to gain by meeting with Gorbachev. I don't think any American president should have met with any president of the Soviet Union ever at any point. I also think that the Soviet Union and I thought this, the Soviet Union continued to survive into the 1980s because of US help, US sanction, US support, because the US kept sending them food. So it was American sanction that actually allowed, made it possible for the Soviet Union to keep ongoing. According to Rand, and I have no reason to doubt her, there's a good chance that the Soviet Union would have collapsed in the 1970s, if not for all the support it got from the United States. And I don't think, you know, I can't remember exactly when Gorbachev and Reagan met, whether it was early in Reagan's term or late in Reagan's term or late 80s. But there's simply no reason for the United States president to meet with anybody except allies or to accept the surrender of an enemy. I just don't see it. I don't see the purpose. What is there for the Americans to gain? I don't believe the United States president should travel around the world, meet every two-bit third world, whatever. What is gained? What is gained? I've said this before in terms of foreign policy. In my view, the world should be categorized, there should be three categories of countries out there. There should be our allies, basically countries that support the United States. But more than that, basically support freedom, support the idea of freedom at some level at least, the kind of mixed economy level, the free speech level that exists in the West today and in many of those other countries.  And then the second category of countries and those countries are countries that are not allies, they're not pro-freedom, but they're not an enemy. They don't pose a threat to you. So these are countries that are fundamentally bad countries but are not a threat to you. And I would even include China in that category. I would include Cuba in that category as compared to North Korea because I don't think Cuba is an enemy. I would include Russia today in that category. I would include, there's no direct conflict. I'd include, no Saudi Arabia I believe is an enemy. So these countries, you don't go visit, you don't pretend that they're the good guys, you don't need to act. I wouldn't have the United States president meet with Xi today, with the president of China today. I don't think you should meet with him. You think Donald Trump's tough on China? It's how you're tough. tariffs is not being tough on China.  You don't sanction a dictator of any form even though China is open. You allow free countries. You don't have any tariffs with these countries. You don't restrict people's ability to trade with these countries. But you don't treat them as normal countries. You don't treat them as your allies. You don't treat them as your friends. They're dictators. And then the third category are enemies. And enemies you don't trade with, enemies you don't have embassies in, enemies you have nothing to do with.  It's not that you have tariffs, you ban their products completely. You do not support them in any way. And I would include there. They're not that many enemies right now. Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, you know, maybe that's it. Russia's borderline. And you don't do anything with them. You certainly don't meet them. So that is the only way you do foreign policy. You don't treat your foes as your friends. You don't treat your enemies as as neutral as the good guys. You don't praise dictators. So I was reading Donald Trump, you know, how wonderful this guy is. It's, you know, it's just unimaginable to me that an American president would be saying these things. I think most other American presidents, even somebody like Obama, who implicitly sanctioned and explicitly sanctioned tons and tons and tons, you know, lots of dictators and lots of horrible regimes and the Iran deal was was monstrous. But they didn't go on and on about how the Mullahs are kind of okay people. You know, they're tough. And you know, your friends with them now. But this is how this is Trump.   He loves his people. This is the monster. This is Trump talking about him. And it's I mean, and of course, I know, and Trump won't have a problem in a week changing his mind and saying, no, no, no, you guys are monster. Nobody should ever talk to him. We should ever do anything with him. So that's because Trump is Trump.  The reality means nothing. Pragmatist, it's whatever, whatever work whatever he thinks works. That's what he'll do. So I have to say, and I know, I know this is shocking to people. Trump is turning out to be worse than I thought. And I thought it was pretty bad to begin with. Now it's true. There's some deregulation going on. You know, the economy is doing great. Corporate taxes were cut. That was a very good thing. But in spite of all that, he's turning out to be much worse. And yeah, they moved the embassy to Jerusalem and he got out of the Iran deal. Although there's no strategy about what we do now because the Europeans are trading with Iran, China's trading with Iran, Russia's trading with Iran. So Iran doesn't care that we got out of the deal or doesn't care a lot that we get out of the deal. So what is the strategy now? What is the strategy? Yeah, I know some of you think the United States is just as bad as the other countries. You're nuts if you think that you're completely nuts.  And the idea that the United States is just as monstrous as all these other regimes is pathetic. I mean, as much as the U.S. government is bad, as much as the U.S. foreign policy is bad, to compare the United States to these other countries is off the charts ridiculous. And the United States should have a much better foreign policy. But we are not, our regimes, our government is not monstrous in the sense that these other governments are. Somebody asked Stuart asks, was it legitimate for the U.S. to have trade sanctions against South Africa for apartheid? No. And again, I don't think the Americans should have trade sanctions against anybody except an enemy state. That is, I think that it was legitimate for people not to want to buy goods made in South Africa. I think it was legitimate for independent individuals to boycott South Africa. I would have done that. I think apartheid is disgusting and despicable. But the U.S. government should only get involved in what you buy or don't buy when you by buying it are supporting an enemy of the United States. So only with this individual rights involved, only when there's a real legitimate threat to the United States. Africa since South Africa was never a threat to the United States. It was none of the American government's business, what you do with South Africa. I think it's a moral issue. You shouldn't have bought anything from South Africa. You as an individual should not have traded with South Africa. But the U.S. government should only impose sanctions on countries that are a threat to the U.S. So trading should stop for any country that is not in your terms. I don't understand what that means. I just said that the government should not get involved. You as an individual, get to the side. Some people don't buy Goods Made in China. That's great. Don't buy. I wouldn't buy Goods Made in South Africa under apartheid because apartheid was a disgusting, morally oppressive, horrific regime. And again, much worse than anything in the United States in modern times. I wouldn't buy anything. If I was a Northerner, I wouldn't buy anything made in the South under slavery. You know, you can go on and on, but I wouldn't buy. If I knew a product was made by the exploitation of slave labor, the other people, I wouldn't buy it. Traders for self-interest. My self-interest encompasses morality. It doesn't just, it's just this material.  Oh, Dan asks, Super Chat. Thank you for doing the Super Chat. What are your thoughts on the AT&T merger beating the Department of Justice and Anti-Trust? Yes. One of those, you know, yes moments. I mean, the judge basically said the Justice Department had no case because the Justice Department had no case. And I said this from the beginning. This is completely politically motivated. It was motivated by Donald Trump and his hatred for CNN. It had nothing to do with anti-trust laws.  The bad law, the anti-trust laws was particularly bad, particularly egregious, particularly wrong. And the judge recognized that and threw it out. So good for the judge. Good for the judge. But if there are going to be no questions, I think I'm done. Let's see if I want to say anything. Well, I mean, I could say, I mean, I could say a lot about what this press conference of Trump, I mean, what it reveals about his soul and how, I mean, not only that, but the praise Trump during this press conference heaps on Qixi, the dictator of China and the praise he heaps on dictators generally and the fact that he is ultimately, you know, very positive about Putin. It just shows how much of a authoritarian spirit he really has. He really has. Somebody's asking about tariffs. My position on tariffs is that the United States should have zero tariffs. And any other sane country should do the same. But the United States, because it cares about its own citizens and it cares about the rights of its own citizens, should reduce tariffs to zero, zero. And if the Canadians cared about their own citizens, they would reduce tariffs to zero as well. But the American government's job is to care for its own citizens, not for other people's citizens. Hey, Iran, big fan for South America. Don't you think Trump should butter him up a little as he is doing before getting into negotiations? No, never, ever. You don't butter up a mass murderer.  You don't butter up anybody. And why are we getting into negotiations? I don't believe we should be getting into negotiations. I don't believe I don't agree with any of the premise. I don't believe we should get into negotiations. There is no negotiations.   Stop developing you. I mean, the conditions are very simple, very straightforward. You don't need to negotiate. Just do it. If you really care, I mean, that's what the Chinese did. Right. Deng Cha Ping didn't negotiate with the West to open China up. He just opened China up. So just do that. Just just allow your people freedom of movements, allow them to leave the country, get rid of the concentration camps, and open the country up. So I don't understand what the negotiation is. What's the point? And the United States could say, we're not going to invest and we're not going to give you anything as long as you have nukes. Fine. So the North Koreans get to choose. If they want US investment and US money, they do it with their nukes. They don't. They don't do it with their nukes. Fine. But the United States has nothing zero to gain from negotiations. And again, I started off the show by saying, how do you negotiate with a evil, bastard, murderous monster who on a flip of a coin would lie to you? How do you know if anything it says is ever true? If the world really wanted to help North Korea, wouldn't we be helping some type of rebellion? Yeah, I mean, I would support a rebellion in North Korea. I think I don't know that anybody's tried. I don't know enough about internally North Korea, what's going on. I don't have any intelligence information about North Korea. But yes, if if the real thing to do both in Iran and in North Korea is to support whatever opposition there is and to support a rebellion within and to get rid of this monster and to free up the country, that's all that needs to be done. Country needs to be freed up. Can you please talk about federal interest rate hike? Some say it is good because it can slow down the possibility of a bubble boosting. It doesn't slow down the possibility of a bubble boosting. It will increase the possibility of a bubble boosting as you increase interest rates. The probability of the bubble boosting increases which by keeping interest rates low, you're promoting the bubble. You're funding the bubble. So by raising interest rates, you're deflating the bubble. So the idea is that if you do it properly, if you do it slowly, if you do it smartly, you deflate the bubble. But of course, since when does the Federal Reserve know anything about this? Since when does central plan is good at any of this? So I don't have an opinion about the Federal Reserve hiking interest rates, although I think that interest rates were too low relative to where they would be in a free market. Because anything the Fed does because it is a central planet is by definition wrong. What we need is a market to determine interest rates by you know, supply and demand of loanable funds. How much people want to borrow at what rate and how much people want to lend it at what rate? And by officially setting an interest rate and by officially pumping up or down their money supply, the Federal Reserve can only do damage. It cannot do good. Saying that, I think interest rates probably, short term interest rates are probably too low and they should go up. But it's hard to tell because we don't have a market and we don't have a real market signal because the market is completely dependent on the signals and the activities of the Fed and what the Fed will do. The Fed is just but that's a whole let's let's leave that question to you know, we'll talk more about the Federal Reserve in the future. I agree that it's terrible that the president is sanctioning. But what do you think of Dennis Rodman trying to change the regime from within? I don't think Dennis Rodman was trying to change the regime from within. Dennis Rodman was going to hang out with the monster because Dennis Rodman thinks monsters are cool. I've never liked Dennis Rodman. I didn't like him as a basketball player. I certainly don't like him as a human being. And Dennis Rodman thought it was cool to hang out with a dictator who murdered people. I don't think there was any sense in which Dennis Rodman was trying to try to change the regime, to influence the regime. And I don't think anybody should go to North Korea.  I don't think anybody should go to North Korea. Anything you do, anybody as a tourist, as anything, as a diplomat, I don't think an American should set foot in North Korea. Every time you do so, you legitimize the regime unless you're a CIA trying to undermine the regime and support the opposition there. But again, Rodman gave the dictator, somebody called it sweet cred. Again, he legitimized him. He made him cool. He made him cool. You don't make monsters cool. You don't make motorists cool. I think that's all I wanted to say. I mean, I could say a lot more about again about Trump, but I say too much about Trump anyway. I'm tired of it. Tired. Tired of it. Just like I was tired of attacking Obama all the time. But the thing, the difference is that when I attacked Obama, it seemingly everybody was on my side, at least on social media. Everybody supported me. When I attack Trump, half my followers hate my guts. So it's just weird. All right. Thanks, everybody. Have a good night. I think I've answered all the questions that people had. I don't know if to a satisfaction, but at least I answered them. By the way, I find that a lot of people just this last point, I find a lot of people assuming that something really, really good is going to come of this. That is that North Korea is going to open up and things are going to get great in North Korea. And why would you assume that? Why would you assume that? I don't understand the naivete, the attachment from reality that assumes that anything a dictator says is legitimate. Anything a monster like this guy says is legitimate. And why there is any hope that something good is going to come of this? I mean, maybe something good will come of it, but not because of this. Maybe something good will come because this monster has had some kind of awakening and it wants to be a better guy. But it's not because of Trump. If he wants to be a better guy, he can be a better guy. He can, again, open up the country. He doesn't need the sanction of Trump to do it. He just needs to do it. Yeah. Monsters change their minds. Deng Xiaoping is the best example of this in history. He changed his mind and he made China a better place. And then of course, he also massacred all those students in Tiananmen Square, 10,000 students in Tiananmen Square. So the monster within him stayed. It didn't completely go away, but he did change his mind on certain issues. Guy might change his mind, but it's not because of Trump. It's not being that did it. It's because he changes his mind. All right. Thank you, everybody. I will talk to you on Saturday. If you're on an Amy show, we'll be on Saturday, usual time. So 11 o'clock Pacific time, two o'clock Eastern time. Thoughts on David were mentioning you and Joe Rogan. Quick one. Yeah, great. Joe Davis said that he would try to get Joe Rogan to invite me to an interview. We've talked about it. This is great. I'm now sitting in great suspense waiting for the phone call from Joe Rogan's people to schedule an interview. That'll be fantastic. Maybe when I'm in LA next month. All right. Thanks, everybody. See you Saturday. Don't forget Patreon, PayPal, subscribe to my channel and YouTube. Bye.