it's so meeting it's being recorded. Very good. All right, so can I share screen? Yes. All right. Screen. All right. Hi, everyone. This is a series of lectures on hypercalor manifolds. I'm going to start with fairly elementary things, but we will relatively quickly get into more advanced stuff. So don't be afraid to ask questions. And here we go. So something is wrong with my apple pencil. So the first thing that I'm going to start to do is mainly to fix some notation. So in this first lecture, we'll be working with C infinity manifolds. Okay. So that's our first part. So if we have a C infinity manifold, we're going to denote it by M, right? And we denote by Tm, the tangent bundle of M and Tm star, the cotangent bundle. So this is the real tangent bundle, right? My C infinity manifold is a real manifold. So when I write star, I mean the real dual, right? Okay. And we also will talk about tensors. So for any pair of non-negative integers, k and l, the sections, and by sections, in this part, we always mean C infinity sections, the sections of the bundle. Now I'm going to take Tm tensor power to the k, and then I'm going to tensor that with the cotangent bundle Tm star, tensor power l. These are called kl tensors. Sorry, something is wrong again with my apple pens. Oh, there we go. Are called kl tensors. Okay. And of course sections of wedge k of Tm star are called differential one forms, right? C infinity differential one forms, I'm sorry, k forms, not one forms, k forms. And also the the sections of the tangent bundle, we also call them vector fields, right? So alternatively, vector fields, which are the sections of Tm, right, can be defined as first-order differential operators on C infinity functions on your manifold, right? So most of the time we think of a vector field in terms of how it acts on a C infinity function, right? And this action is basically taking derivatives, right, of C infinity functions, and it has the usual properties of the derivative, you know, it's linear with respect to constants, and it satisfies the Leibniz rule, right? Okay. And let me also set down some notation about the coordinates. So in a coordinate chart, so in a local coordinate chart, okay, sorry, my computer is heating up a little bit. Okay. So in a local coordinate chart with coordinates x1, xn, the local vector fields, right? ddx1 and then ddxn, they form a basis of the tangent bundle, right? This is, of course, a local basis. It will only work on your coordinate chart. And then you have local one-forms, right? So the local one-forms, dx1, etc. dxn form a basis of differential one-forms. And then you can write a local local KL tensor. That would be, you could write it as a sum, a big sum, of some C infinity functions, which I will call ti1ik and then j1jl. And then I will have my basis of tangent vectors, so ddxi1, ddxik, and then I will have my differential one-forms. Okay. So this is our notation. And let me now remind you what the Leib bracket is. This is something that is the basis of a lot of what people do with vector fields, right? So given two vector fields, I'm going to write them in local coordinates. So some of the vi ddxi, i going from 1 to n, and w will be the sum of the wi ddxi, again, i going from 1 to n. Then you can locally write down the Leib bracket. Of course, this is something that's defined globally, right? And we're just writing here the, we're just writing the local expression of it, right? So the Leib bracket vw can be locally expressed as, so you write it like this. So it's the sum for j going from 1 to n of the sum for i going from 1 to n. And now what we're going to do, well, it's the thing that you probably have seen before. You want to think of this actually in terms of acting on functions, right? So for c infinity, let me write down how it acts for c infinity functions, right? You're going to say that, so you wanted to take the commutator of v and w, right? So this is going to be v acting on the c infinity function w of f. So w is the first differential operator that acts on f, right? And then v is going to act on the output of w, right? And then minus, as I said, it's the commutator. So you're going to do minus w of v of f, right? So if you think of what this means in terms of local coordinates, right? So in local coordinates, v is the sum of the wi ddxi, v of f is the sum of the wi df dxi, right? So if you think about what this means, then you will see the local expression of the Liebrakhet up here. It's going to be vi. Remember, I have to act on f by w first. And then I act on it by v, right? So I'm going to have the ddxj here, right? Which acts on f. And then the coordinate will be the coordinate of w, right? And this is v acting on w of f, right? It's a simple exercise that you can do at home if you have trouble following me right here because I'm going a little bit fast. All right. So this is the Liebrakhet. And as I said, it's a very foundational thing. You can show that it's independent of the choice of local coordinates. And so it puts a, it puts also a structure of the algebra on the, on the space of sections of the tangent bundle, right? On the, on the space of all vector, all synchrony vector fields. All right. So the next thing that we're going to need to introduce is connections. So what's the connection? That's at the basis of the study that we will do of manifolds, right? So, and they're, they can be defined for any vector bundles. So for any, for a C infinity vector bundle E on M, a connection is a linear map, which goes from where to where. So usually people write connections with the letter nabla. And it goes from the space of C infinity sections of the, of your vector bundle E to the space of C infinity sections of the vector bundle E, tensored with the cotangent bundle. Okay. So now if you, if you think of the fact that, you know, the cotangent is the dual, giving yourself a map like this is equivalent to giving yourself a map like this. So you can say nabla goes from C infinity of E tensored the tangent bundle into C infinity of E. So giving yourself a map of this shape or a map of the shape that I had before are the same thing, right? And let me put this one in parenthesis because I'm not using it right now. And so you have this, you have this linear map, right, from the space of C infinity sections of E to the space of C infinity sections of E tensored the cotangent bundle. And what you want is you want it, of course, to again satisfy the lightness. The connection is a substitute for taking derivatives again. So, you know, if you have, if you have local coordinates, you know how to take derivatives, but but that's only for functions, right? So what you want to do here, you want to take derivatives of sections of a vector bundle. And that's not always going to work. So you need to actually say how you're taking derivatives. So because it's a way of taking derivatives, it has to satisfy the lightness rule. And which would say what, which will say nabla of f times E is equal to f times nabla of E plus E tensored with the differential of the function f for all c infinity sections, little e of E and c infinity functions f on m. Okay, the connection actually doesn't just act on global sections, it also it also will act on local sections on any open set, right? So this is what we're not actually saying here explicitly is that this is actually well defined on a open set. So you can take c infinity sections on any open set, and you have the same thing. All right. And whenever you have a connection, it defines a useful linear map. And this is the map, you know, this is what I was talking about for taking derivatives, right? So for any vector field, little v, nabla defines a linear map nabla v, which goes from the space of c infinity sections of e to the space of c infinity sections of e. So this is the taking derivatives. And what do you do here? You send the section e to nablas, what we call nabla sub, sorry, nabla sub v of e, which is by definition, nabla of e acting on v, right? So remember nabla is something that goes from the c infinity sections of e to the c infinity sections of e tensor t and dual, right? So this nabla of e is a section of e tensor that cotangent bundle, and you're acting with it on this tangent vector. So you're pairing the cotangent bundle with the tangent bundle. And then so they kind of cancel each other and you get a section of e, right? So that's what you get. Or if you want to think of nabla as going, sorry, my handwriting is getting messed up. Or if we think of nabla as going from c infinity of e tensor tm into c infinity of e, then this nabla v of e will be nabla of e tensor v, right? So that's, I mean, that's another way of thinking about it. That's all. All right. So this is a connection. Now, most of the time, we will be interested in connections, not just on any vector bundle, but on the tangent bundle itself, right? So for that, for that particular case, there's another notion, right? So when e, when e is equal to the tangent bundle, we can define the torsion of a connection, where here I will also again use this, the other point of view. So here I have e tensor tm, I bet e is tm.  So all of these are vector fields. And we say that nabla is torsion free or some, in some, in some of the literature, people would also use the word symmetric if the torsion is zero. Okay? All right. So this is a useful notion for Riemannian manifolds and we will see shortly why. Could someone remind me when I'm supposed to stop for the break, please? Yes, you should stop at 450 and we will have five minutes break. Yes. So that's in 25 minutes? Yes, right. Yes. Sorry. No, no, that's fine. That's fine. Yes, I forgot you're in another time zone. Sorry. I have to translate. All right. So okay, so we're doing good time, time wise. Are there any questions so far, anyone? Did anybody want to ask me about anything? Okay. All right. So the next, the next thing about a connection is the curvature. So let me explain about that. So what's a curvature? You probably heard of curvature. Euclidean space is what we call flats. It has no curvature. It's not curved, but a lot of the time when you have a Riemannian manifold, which I haven't told you yet what it is, it's not flat. It's curved. Okay. So and what does the curvature tell you mainly? I mean, you know that if you take partial derivatives, usually when you take mixed partials, you know, that the mixed second partials commute, right? So if I do d2f, dxi, dxj, that's equal to d2f, dxj, dxi, right? I can switch the order of partial differentiation for functions normally, right? That's on Euclidean space. And it's also true in local coordinate charts for any manifold, right? But it's not going to be true in general for an arbitrary connection. As I said, now we think of the connection as our way of taking derivatives, right? So if you take a derivative with respect to one vector field, then you take the derivative with respect to the other vector field, it's not going to be the same in general as switching the order. So switching the order is going to change the final output of your second derivative, all right? So that's, so the curvature kind of measure that measures that error, you know, and what and how much, how different are, is it, how different are those two differentiations from each other, right? So what's the difference between taking one derivative first and taking the other one and then switching the order, right? So, but let me give you the formal definition. So the, the curvature of a connection, nabla, is a linear map, which people usually denote by big R. And it goes from C infinity of E2, C infinity of E tensor wedge two of the cotangent bundle. Or you can think of it as just like before, we can think of it as a linear map going from C infinity of E tensor with wedge two of the tangent bundle into C infinity of E. Or we can think of it as a third way. Now you see, because I have a wedge two of TM here, I can take one of the tensors, one of the TM factors and put it on the other side, right? So I can think of it as an endomorphism. So, or you can think of this as a section, a global section of the endomorphism bundle of E tensored with wedge two of TM dual. Sorry, sorry, I didn't mean to take one of the TM factors, I meant take the E factor. If you put, if over here I take my E factor on the first line, I take the E and I put it on the other side, it becomes an E dual, right? So this endomorphism of E, right? This guy here is also C infinity of E dual tensor E tensor wedge two of TM dual. Okay, all right. So these are, you know, three different ways of writing down the curvature. So, and how do we define it, right? So it can be defined via its action on sections little E of big E and vector fields V and W as follows. So I'm going to take the point of view, the second point of view, right? So I'm going to think of the curvature as something going from E tensor wedge two of M into E, right? So I'm going to take a section little E of big E and then tensor it with V wedge W and what is this going to be? This is going to be, now I'm going to take nabla V of nabla W of E. So this is what I was talking about, like I'm taking the first derivative of E with respect to W in the direction of W, then I'm taking the derivative of that in the direction of V, right? So this is a second derivative here, and I'm going to subtract nabla W of nabla V of E, right? But now actually, because we have arbitrary vector fields, right? And arbitrary vector fields themselves do not commute, right? The commutator of arbitrary vector fields is actually the lee bracket, right? So what I want to do here, really, I do want to subtract the lee bracket, okay? So normally, in an ideal world, right, if you had a flat connection, if you had a flat world, right, if your manifold were something that you can think of as flat, it's not curved, then when you switch the order of differentiation for two arbitrary vector fields, right? It should give you the lee bracket. So then what the curvature actually does, it measures the difference between switching the order and the lee bracket, right? And so in terms of local coordinates, right? And now you'll see that in local coordinates, it's exactly what we wanted before, right? X1, Xn, then what do you get? You get that R of, I can do the R of ddxi wedge ddxj, right? And what's this going to be? This is actually going to be nabler ddxi of nabler ddxj of E minus nabler ddxj nabler ddxi of E. And that's it, because what you know is that the bracket of ddxi and ddxj is zero, right? This is a local thing that we're doing here. And you know that the bracket of partial differentiation is zero. So in local coordinates, this is really what you get. So now, let me give you a definition. So before we had the definition of torsion, right, you will see how it's a little bit similar, right? The torsion that we have here was, well, it was only defined on a pair of vector fields, right? So you acted with the connection on one vector field, right? And then minus the action on the other vector field minus the lee bracket of the two vector fields, right? That was the torsion, but not that the curvature is a little bit different, although it's reminiscent of the torsion, right? So you're doing the difference between the differentiation with respect to the two vector fields and then the lee bracket. Now we have the fact that it was torsion free when the torsion was zero. So now we talk about when the curvature is zero, right? So the definition here is, we say in the nabler is flat, if its curvature is zero, okay? And you will note if you go back to this description of the curvature as I see infinity section of the endomorphism of E tensor wedge two of T and dual, well, okay. Now maybe I will get back to that later. Sorry. No, let me not say that right now. Okay. So this is our definition of a flat connection. It's flat if the curvature is zero. All right. Any questions? Now, because we're going to pass to a different section now. All right. No questions. So the next thing we're going to do, we're going to talk about Riemannian manifolds, right? Those are the most important objects for this series of lectures, right? So what are Riemannian manifolds? So as see infinity manifold is called Riemannian if it has a Riemannian metric. Now I will explain what that is. Okay. What is that? That is what we call in the language of tensors. This is a two-zero tensor. And what's a two-zero tensor? If you don't remember, a two-zero tensor is as the global section of the second tensor power of the cotangent bundle. Okay. And well, it's not just a section of the second tensor power, but it's also symmetric. What does that mean? It means that it actually belongs to see infinity of seam two of tm dual. And it needs to have one more property. It has to be positive definite. Okay. So and defines a positive definite quadratic form on the tangent space txm for all x in M. Right. So your form is a section of seam two of tm dual. So it naturally acts on tm, right? It's a bilinear form on tm. And you can, you know, when you have a bilinear form, you can just plug in the same vector twice and you get a quadratic form. So you're asking that that quadratic form be positive definite, meaning that so what you want is if I take the value at the point x, I want gx of vv to be strictly positive for all v in txm, not zero of course. Okay. All right. So this is a Riemannian manifold. That's it. It has to have a Riemannian metric. And this is what a Riemannian metric is. So now when you have a Riemannian metric, and if you have a vector bundle with a connection, you can do something that we call a parallel transport, right? Okay. So what is that? Let's explain what that is. So now suppose that we are given a vector bundle, a C infinity vector bundle E on M with a connection nabla, which goes from, again, I'm thinking of this nabla as going from C infinity of E to C infinity of E tensor tm do, right? And now, as I said, we wanted to try parallel transport. Sorry, Elam. I think that you are muted. You did yourself. We lost signal from the microphone of the iPad, I think. Yes. Elam, could you turn on your microphone on your computer?


Hello everybody. The operations team here at Anabaptist Perspectives is getting together today because there are a few things that we want you to know. I'm Jaren Miller and I work on the operations team for Anabaptist Perspectives. My work often includes things such as preparing scripts and lining up guests for the interviews and the content that we publish for you each week. I'm Marlon Summers and specifically my roles often with finance, communications, things like the website. I also enjoy getting help with content sometimes. I'm Vincent Miller and I am on the operations team with Marlon and Jaren. A lot of what I work on is the production management making sure that all the pieces come together before an episode is released. Season three is ending. For the first three seasons of Anabaptist Perspectives, we have published roughly 50 episodes each season and that has been the case again for season three. The difference is that for the final four episodes of season three that we are publishing beginning today, we'll only be on podcast and not on video. So the weekly release schedule here on YouTube and Facebook wherever you're watching this video has ended. Today on the podcast we are publishing an episode with Kate Kleinsaucer. She's a woman who is working in Athens, Greece and she is passionate about serving women who have experienced and are suffering from trauma. As Jaren said, we are switching to podcast only for the last few episodes of season three. If you're not subscribed to us already, you should be able to find us on your favorite podcast platform. You can also listen to our podcast on our website, anabaptistperspectives.org, slash podcast. And then the next three episodes on the podcast are actually interviews that are based off of essays from our blog, Essays for King Jesus. There's a conversation about stewardship and fresh perspective where Kyle Stahlsfuus and I are talking about stewardship as a managing role or position of responsibility for other people. There's a conversation around issues in Bible translation and then another conversation about Anabaptist history and how we should look at Anabaptist history. I'm discussing with Kyle, an essay where he argued that we understand Anabaptists better if we see the things they saw. And specifically, that the early Anabaptists had a much better grasp of what the Bible talks about as principalities and powers than we do. And if we want to understand them, we have to understand the biblical teaching about principalities and powers. And also, there will be one more video coming out, but very different from the episodes we've been releasing. We've done a short animated video taking on the illustrations and a few key points from that stewardship essay. And we'll be releasing that later in September, alongside the podcast on stewardship. And I would just note here, there is additional video content available on Patreon. If you're not familiar with Patreon, that's a place where in exchange for a monthly contribution of any amount, you can watch some of our bonus clips. There's some audio material as well, where we respond to questions from the audience. And coming up soon, actually some video editions of our Ask Anabaptist Perspectives Anything podcast, where we take up some audience questions and discuss those. Find us on Patreon at patreon.com slash Anabaptist Perspectives or also from anabaptistperspectives.org slash donate. You can make a donation online or find information about Patreon as well. Thank you for being with us for season three. We really appreciate all the ways that you have left us feedback and comments and I'm engaged with the content that we're publishing. And for this, we are grateful. We have several more episodes that we'll be publishing on podcasts, so make sure you go and find us there. And then after that in several months, we will see you in season four.


He says, I assume you have had numerous interactions with observations of individuals best described as platonic philosopher kings.  More importantly, any memorable unique or just plain odd characteristics that these platonic philosopher kings you have interacted with or observed. These characteristics may include personality, character, temperament, eccentricities of physical traits. I look forward to your insight. So I read this when you said it, so this is about a month ago. And I've been thinking a little bit about this and it's an interesting question. But the thing that in terms of traits, in terms of the kind of person they are, I think the thing that always jumps out at me in terms of these kind of people is that they're always really, really, really smart. That is, they have a high level of intelligence, of the ability to handle a lot of stuff, a lot of data, a lot of information. They are in some realm successful, often legitimately successful. Sometimes illegitimately successful. Illegitimately successful you can think of or else with two who is successful at being a secondhand, it's successful at manipulating people, it's successful at the politician type, but they're almost always smarter than the people around them.  They have a particular goal. Some of them are more benevolent, some of them are more malevolent. I think the politicians, they're also twoies, the intellectuals tend to be very malevolent. But I know a lot of business people who have this platonic philosophy of king attitude and they tend to be quite benevolent. They tend to really think that, you know, you see the Silicon Valley a lot. They are super successful at business, super successful at tech. They're off the charts smart. And then they're now convinced that they can solve everybody's problems. That if only we handed them control. This explains why so many of the Silicon Valley guys are such leftists. If we only handed them control, they could run the world better than anybody else. They could run your life better than you can. Because look, they run their lives pretty good and they've been incredibly successful and they've done all these amazing things. So obviously, so again, I think there are two types. I'd say the businessman type, the benevolent type, who have honestly been super successful. Have I think this honestly concluded that other people cannot be successful because they're not smart enough because they're not disciplined enough. And dishonestly, they have come to the conclusion that they can impose that if only they could force you, guide you, what do you call it, nudge you into better behavior, they could get you to be more successful. That's the kind of benevolent, more positive variation of this. And again, you see it a lot in tech entrepreneurs, among tech entrepreneurs.  They really do think they're more successful than anybody else and they are. Now they think that they can solve all the world's problems because they're good businessmen and they can't, particularly not by managing other people's lives. They think that managing people's lives, managing and managing, government managing, economies managing, culture, society is like managing a company and it's not. And they belittle other people's free will. They belittle other people's ability to think for themselves. They belittle the reasoning capabilities of an ordinary person who's not a genius. And they belittle the idea that for value to be here, value, it has to be yours. They can't choose it for you. It's not a value if they choose it for you. It has to be, you have to be convinced it's good for you. You have to choose it. They don't get that. That's where they're Platonic philosopher kings. The more malevolent types, a motivated not by some benevolent view that they want the world to be a better place and they want to help people become better and they can rule them in terms and nudge them and guide them to become better. The other type is the power lusters. Again, they're typically very smart. The Paul Krugmans of the world, if you will. Super smart. I'm sure scores very high on intelligence tests, but who have lost touch with reality, who successes of all being in the realm of other people, manipulating other people, controlling other people, or in academia, detached somewhat from reality. And what really seems to drive them is power. And they are willing in their own lives, in their own attainment of power to vade reality, to ignore facts. They achieve within the realm in which they need to achieve. They play by the rules in order to achieve what they need to achieve. This is most politicians. They want you to submit to them, not because they have some benevolent motivation to make your life better and to make the world better, although they convince themselves that that's their motivation. But their real motivation is just to subjugate you. Their real motivation is just power and power lust. And in that sense, they're not, yeah, they're not Platonic philosopher kings in the Platonic sense, because Plato viewed his Platonic philosopher kings as very benevolent, as motivated by the right things. But these people view themselves, in a sense, smarter, and they see the light, and they know reality, and they know truth, and they will guide you. But that's all the rationalization for their power lust, for they want to control you, for they want to subjugate you. So I think those are my observations. Do they have, I mean, I think a theme that goes here is dishonesty at some level. Obviously, the second type are far more dishonest than the first. But at some level, they're being dishonest. At some level, they're evading something about reality. So I don't know about personality. You can find across the spectrum, again, the second type are other oriented. The key is that they are there to control you, so they have to convince you. So they're very good at dealing with people. The business type is different. Many of them are not good at dealing with people. One of the reasons they think, and they don't try to go into politics, that they don't try to manifest the platonic philosophy of King, is because they're not very good with other people. And they're not, you know, they're good at managing within a technical context, but they're not very social. Again, that separates the two types. I don't know about eccentricities and I certainly don't know about any physical traits. I don't think there are any that unite them. So I hope that answers the question. I'm happy to respond to our follow-up, Ragnar of the Desert. So feel free, and if I have more thoughts on the issue, I will bring them up. Show your appreciation. You can do that by going to youronbookshow.com.  Also, if you'd like to see the Iran Book Show grow, please consider sharing our content. And of course, subscribe. Press that little bell button right down there on YouTube so that you get an announcement when we go live. And for those of you who are already subscribers and those of you who are already supporters of the show, thank you. I very much appreciate it.


Something's missing from most Australian self-managed super funds. It's corporate bonds. To explore what professional investors already know, speak to FIG, the fixed-income experts. Visit bondsmadesimple.com.au or call 1-300-125-266.


Good morning John, I'm back and I'm officially a dad which means that I can make a video that I've wanted to make for years but did not feel qualified until this moment. This is 41 dad jokes in under four minutes. Now that I have a son, you might say that I have a dad bod. But I'd rather call it a father figure. I don't know if you know this, but I can cut through wood just by looking at it. Yeah, I didn't believe it at first either, but I saw it with my own eyes. You know what the loneliest cheese is? Provalone. Also, did you hear about the explosion of the cheese factory? Yeah, it was terrible. The only thing left was debris. I just found out my friend was dating a communist. He really should have noticed. There were so many red flags. To the man who stole my thesaurus, I have no words for how angry I am. You know, I've always hated elevators, which is why I've recently started taking steps to avoid them. Hey, how long does dinner gonna be? Oh, uh, like, this, this long? You know, I like to wear these leather shoes when I'm sneaking around at night because they are literally made of hide. I cannot wait for my son to one day say to me, Dad, I think I have your sense of humor so that I can say to him, You give that back! So why does scuba divers fall backwards out of boats? Because if they fell forward, they'd still be in the boat. All right, uh, wh-what are you doing? I'm looking for Will Smith. He always leaves fresh prints. I love how the earth rotates. It really makes my day. Hey, how does dinner smell? Through its nose, I guess. Feeling cranky, baby? There's a nap for that. You know, I don't like Russian dolls. They are so full of themselves. Dude, what is so funny? Oh, I'm looking at mountain ranges on Google Images. They are hilarious. Oh, boiling water. You will be missed. You know, I realized that Orion- Aw. Are you resisting arrest? That's okay. I don't want them to accuse me of kidnapping. Orion's belt. Huge waste of space. You get it like, waste, waste of space? Yeah, I know, I get it. This is not a great joke. I give it three stars. Aw. Are you done with your nap? This is my baby. Hey. How are you doing? Okay, we're gonna take you to mommy. Sorry. What's Whitney Houston's favorite type of coordination? Hyundai! What are you doing? What are you doing? I'm, uh, I'm measuring your patience. Ow. What do you get when you divide a poop into three pieces? Turds. You get turds. How many sides does a circle have? That is actually a really interesting- Two! The outside and the inside. Man, can I eat a case of DEA right now? A whole case? Why don't you just start with one DEA and see how you feel from there? Hey, how's the temperature out there? It's pretty nice. You only need, like, a jean jacket. Oh, so it's in the 80s? What did Barack Obama say when he dropped his shell at the beach? Oh, no! Michelle! That's my Barack Obama impersonation. I've been working on it. So these two pharaohs, they farted at the same time. Yeah, they had a toot in common. Oh, son, I'm glad I'm not your math book. It has got so many problems. What's the difference between a roast beef and a pea soup? Anybody can roast beef. How do locomotives know where to go? They go through lots of training. Hey, do you know where we can get chicken stock and bulk? Yeah, at the stock market. Hey, what are you reading? This, it's a mystery. I mean, doesn't it say right on the cover? One time I was at this really skeezy bus stop and there was a lobster with boobs. Yeah, it was a bus-decre station at the Krusty bus station. Hey, um, do you serve fish here? Yeah. Yeah, we do. Excellent. Dave will have the steak.  It's how I get my food in it. John, it was real pat on the back for me when Organic Valley decided they were gonna sculpt me out of butter. It was a very big deal for me. It was a churning point in my life. I think it made me a butter man. That actually is the thing that happened. Organic Valley sculpted me out of butter because people voted on Twitter enough. And finally, you know what my very first dad joke of dadhood was?  I put him on the changing table and I said, now what am I gonna change you into? A rhinoceros? And I was like, yes, I'm a dad. I made an embarrassing joke and I got peed on and I'm officially a dad and I love it, John. I'll see you on Tuesday. I cannot believe how many jokes videos I've made over the years. You can watch all of them. I made a playlist. Boop-de-doop-doop-doop. Bop!


take a look at the final stats a game for Philadelphia wins 112 to 108 they shoot 50% from the floor Nets got to the free throw line but they once again lose the rebounding battle they were a minus 14 there just 14 turnovers with 14 points off those turnovers so they kept that down but the Sixers hold on they win by four time now to head back out to Barclay Center welcome in our announcers I and Eagle Sauer Kustak Richard Jefferson another great call out of you guys on this game for Nets gave them everything today bird but they they just fall short certainly disappointment here for the Brooklyn Nets considering that they had a chance to really change the whole scope of this series they got a win here pressure goes back to Philadelphia and now they're not going to experience that now the Sixers feel like they have a chance to close it out I think if you ask the Nets before the game you have a lead late it's Mike Scott shooting a three from the corner off a scramble they probably would have taken that situation and run with it but Scott makes a big shot for the Sixers yeah despite the numbers especially that Joel and Peter Ben Simmons had I think overall the Nets had a very good job in executing their defensive game plan they looked much quicker and better in their rotations and to your point two at the end of the game we saw some big shot making by D'Angelo Russell by Karis Laverg Joe Harris with a strong layup there was a lot of positives to take out of that finish but just a few of those things for as good as they took care of the basketball throughout the course of the game there was the untimely turnovers that ended up hurting them the rebound battle the Nets really dominated early on and then Philadelphia was able to start to have their way on the glass so it is a small margin of error when you're playing against a team like the 76ers it just wasn't enough here tonight yeah and you look at from top to bottom everyone contributed yes Joe Harris is struggling a little bit from three but this is your first playoff series you're gonna have those ups and downs but you talked about that Mike Scott you had Joe Harris come over the ball gets bobbled it ends up in Mike Scott's hands he knocks it down then on the other side you have Jared Allen catch the ball gets bobbled and ends up with a steal that's how small the the opportunities like are in the in these spaces where you can't make mistakes and really you know the Nets just made one too many mistakes that the turnover on the out of bounds place if you look at I think it was like two out of their last three possessions they had turnovers in the crucial moment so that's just difficult to overcome against that team.


inflation and recession.  It is, it is everywhere. This is the, this is the thing that with all the, everything else discussed, including politics, this is a much of what's going to happen in the world is economic. We're facing the world is facing real economic crisis stock markets might be going up right now, or down on any given day, but generally, we are facing significant crisis and I just thought we'd go over some numbers to kind of see where this came from, what's going on right now, you know, and, and, and what we can expect moving into the future and what we can expect next year. I mean, all of this is really a consequence of the existence of central banks, and the fact that central banks have no real limitations on the ability to print money. You know, the Federal Reserve basically has complete discretion over how much money prints when it prints it what it uses that money for. I mean, it has some boundaries, but often in times in times of crisis, those boundaries, even legal boundaries are brushed aside. We saw that in 2008 2009. We saw that again in 2020, whether whether the Federal Reserve just did whatever it needed to do whatever it thought it needed to do in order to quote save the economy. Even things that are clearly not in its mandate, even things that it's never done before, even things that most of us in the markets, and I think most people in politics assume that they couldn't and weren't allowed to do they still did. Federal Reserve central banks are this incredibly powerful central planning entity central planning organ of the government with the ability to print money with no limitation with no constraints. And this has been going on really since 1914 when the Federal Reserve was established. This is the Federal Reserve was a was a was a cause of the Great Depression have talked about this in the past cause of the Great Depression lasting as long as it did together with FDR and the cause of the great inflation 1970s and everything else that happened. But let's talk about modern history. The fact is that over the last 15 years the Federal Reserve of 14 years the Federal Reserve is reprinting money at an unbelievable rate. In 2008 the point I want to make here before before I give you a little bit of history, let me tell you why I'm doing this. The point I want to make here is that like all central planners like all central planners, the Federal Reserve fundamentally does not know what it's doing. The Federal Reserve cannot predict the future. The Federal Reserve cannot tell what its behavior will actually result in. It is miscalculated over and over and over again. It has caused massive amounts of damage in our economy, in our lives, in our world over and over and over again over decades. It has gotten more sophisticated. It has more models. It is the largest employer of PhDs in the world, I think. PhDs in economics. And yet it does not fundamentally know what it's doing. Because it cannot. Because central planning cannot work. Because you cannot force an economy. You cannot cross a market. You cannot dictate to people what their value should be. And that exactly is exactly what the Federal Reserve tries to do. It tries to manipulate us, incentivize us, dictate to us how and what we should behave in the marketplace. In terms of our savings, our consumption, our investment, our production, our time horizon, time horizon, how forward-looking we should be. All of that, all of that is influenced by their ability to manipulate money and interest rates. And the two are very related because they manipulate interest rates by manipulating money, by buying and selling money, in a sense, by printing and sucking out of the economy money or bonds, but at the end of the day it's money. And by manipulating that interest rate, they are destroying the ability of businessmen to plan properly. They're destroying the ability of savers to save into the future. They're destroying the abilities of consumers to figure out what they should buy now, what they should buy later, how much they should put aside, how much they should invest, what investments make sense, what invests don't make sense. And they turn financial markets to some extent into a type of casino. Now, because of the financial crisis in 2008-9, all the old rules of central banking and the Federal Reserve were thrown out the window. In 2010, the Federal Reserve formally introduced the idea of quantitative easing, QE, which is basically understrain money creation. And this was going to be a standard tool of the policy. Never in history has a central bank ever done anything like, as far as I know, anything like quantitative easing, not in the United States anyway. This was the idea that the bank would go out into the markets and buy government bonds, in other words monetize the debt, buy private bonds. Unusual, right? Now, government backed private bonds, which means mortgage-backed securities, thus making mortgages, mortgage interest rates, cheaper and cheaper and cheaper, so easy and easy and easy to people to get mortgages. Is it a shock then that demand for housing went up and prices kept going up and up and up, when the Fed was driving interest rates on mortgages down and down and down and down because the Fed was just buying up mortgage-backed securities. Hundreds of billions of dollars of them. And of course, during the financial crisis of 2020, not financial crisis, during the COVID crisis of 2020, the Fed started buying up all kinds of private bonds. Thus, in a sense, manipulating even private interest rates, interest rates that typically are determined by private markets based on real risk. Well, risk was out because the Fed was buying these bonds, driving those interest rates down. So that those interest rates didn't reflect real risk anymore. So what the Fed has done since the beginning of its existence, but really in spectacular fashion since 2008, is completely divorce interest rates. Really, in some sense, all interest rates divorce them from liquidity, from risk, from any real world anchor. And I get excited about this because you have, I don't think you have any kind of sense. I don't think any of us has a real sense of how evil and how bad and how disastrous this is to all of our lives because it is so disastrous for the very prospects of economic growth and economic success and entrepreneurial success. I mean, the fact that the economy has grown, the fact that we've had low unemployment in spite of this, just suggests, just gives you an inkling of what is possible, of how much economic growth we are leaving on the table in a sense in the graveyard, if you will. How rich are we actually could be without all this manipulation? But what the Fed does and what the Fed has done over the last 14 years has been destructive to economic planning, economic growth and our standard of living and quality of life. So in 2010, the Fed committed to add $600 billion of reserves into the banking system. Now, in other words, it's bought, you know, increases the money supply in a sense by $600 billion in 2012. It began adding $40 billion in reserves every month. They raised the number to $84 billion per month through 2013. In September 2019, when there were liquidity problems in the overnight markets, the Federal Reserve added reserves at a rate of $60 billion a month. Between November 2010 and March 2020, just before COVID hit, the Federal Reserve's balance sheet, this is the amount of like bonds it has on its balance sheet, the amount of bonds it owns. It went from less than $2.5 trillion to $4.1 trillion, almost doubling. So in a sense, they doubled the amount of money out there. They took in the bonds and they put out liquidity, they put out money. Most of that money sat on the balance sheet of banks. Luckily, you know, the money didn't circulate that much. The velocity of money was pretty low. It didn't cause inflation for a bunch of different reasons. Partially, the Fed keeping interest rates at zero prevented inflation because it made those bonds be the same as... Anyway, it's complicated, but they printed a lot of money. They lowered interest rates to zero, zero, which means that even if there was a little bit of inflation, 1%, real interest rates, real returns were negative and return on saving was non-existent. You could also argue that all this money, maybe, I mean, I've seen different arguments about this, but potentially also led to a massive asset price bubble. Suddenly low interest rates drive asset prices up. When interest rates are low, all assets, all income producing assets, all assets that have future value, the value today goes up. Stocks go up. Everything else held constant, just interest rates going up, stocks will go up, bonds will go up, real estate will go up, any rent producing property will go up. The lower the interest rate, the higher the value of assets, so by driving interest rates to zero, all assets rose. Beginning in March of 2020, the Federal Reserve went to a new level. In that year, 2020, government spending, this is under Trump. In that year, 2020, federal spending, government spending increased 50% to $6.5 trillion. And it remained at 6.5 or approximately 6.5 through the end of fiscal year 2021, so through the Biden administration, even as the pandemic receded. Federal expenditures remained 30% in 2022 above 2019 levels, so the government went on a massive spending spree in 2020, 2021 and 2022. The Fed provided much of the funding of that by monetizing all the debt, mortgage-backed securities again, lowering interest rates during 2020, so in spite of the pandemic, in spite of COVID, what happened to real estate prices? They went up because mortgage interest rates kept going down because the Fed was buying mortgage-backed securities and then they were buying bonds of all kinds at a rate of more than 120 billion per month. So the Federal Reserve balance sheet went, if you remember, it started out at under 2.5 in 2010, it went to 4.1 in 2020, early 2020, and it went to 9 trillion, more than doubled again by 2022, while keeping interest rates basically at zero. Now, this final, so what happened during this period? What happens with interest rates at zero? Well, if I can borrow money at a very, very low interest rate, particularly as asset prices are going up, I have every incentive in the world to borrow money and buy stocks, buy real estate, buy homes. Everybody borrowed money. Federal debt, which was 13.5 trillion and 88% of GDP in 2010 is now 31 trillion, much more than half, much more than double, sorry, and nearly 125% of GDP. Total debt of the non-financial sector, businesses, individuals, which was 247% of GDP in 2010 is now 262. That hasn't gone up as much as I would have expected. Notice how much government debt has gone up. Our debt as individuals, not gone up that much. Between 2010 and 2018, labor productivity increased at an average rate of 1.1%. It had increased at 2.3% from 92 to 2,000, also a period that followed a recession. Between 2010 and 2018, by the way, I'm getting much of this from an article by Thomas Honing, who was, I think, the Fed Chairman of the Kansas City Fed, formerly, so he provides a lot of these stats. So productivity declined. Weekly real earnings declined. Dollar Jones Industrial, on the contrast, shooting through the roof, price of homes, shooting through the roof, every asset goes up in value when interest rates go down. And of course, the ultimate consequence of all this is that in 2022, we are facing, for the first time in 40 years, real inflation, real price inflation. Prices, CPI, consumer prices, the prices you pay for the stuff that you buy, the stuff you need in order to live, has gone up by 9%, 8. something right now, peaked at 9%. I'm not sure it's peaked yet, we'll see. And the Fed in response is increasing interest rates. Because as you increase interest rates then, what happens to asset prices? Well, if when interest rates go down, asset prices go up, when you interest rates go up, asset prices go down. Stock market, way down. Housing prices on the way down. Any income producing asset, any asset that produces stuff in the future is going to be priced down as interest rates go up. Now, inflation mitigates this a little bit because your income is going to go up in the future with inflation, supposedly, rents for example. So that even though interest rates are going up, so is your income, that mitigates it a little bit. So industries that can raise prices are going to see their value decline slower than industries that have a harder time raising prices. But generally, what we're seeing right now is the Federal Reserve increasing interest rates with the hope of slowing down economic growth, with hope of reducing asset prices, with the hope of ultimately reducing inflation, reducing demand for goods, reducing the amount of money chasing goods, reducing businesses expectation about inflation and therefore businesses incentive to raise prices, and thus capping inflation and starting to moderate it down to 2%. And the idea is that if the Fed does it just right, if they increase interest rates just right, just to the right amount, just to the right level, then they will be able to decrease economic growth, they will be able to slow demand in the economy, they will be able to reduce price inflation just enough so that it comes down to what they view as an ideal 2%. I don't know where they get the 2% as ideal for, but an ideal stable 2%, they will be able to do this without a massive recession, without actually economic growth going negative, without millions and millions of people losing their jobs. Now they realize that unemployment is going to increase, but how much they think it's, oh maybe it will increase from now 3.7%, 6%. But this is called the soft landing. The soft landing is, can we reduce inflation, price inflation without really destroying the economy? Now they have two tools for this. One is the increasing interest rates, which we see, they let us know all the time. But in the background, what they're also doing is sucking money out of the economy. Remember before, they were putting money into the economy by buying bonds. When you buy a bond, you get a piece of paper and you send money out. Where does that money come from for the Fed? They print it, electronically printed. But the money goes out into the economy, a bond goes onto the balance sheet of the Fed. When they reverse that, they sell the bond into the market and the money comes back. As they sell the bond into the market, that drives interest rates up. Because buyers are not going to buy that bond unless they get compensated for it. So they're going to drive its price down, its yield up, the yield is the interest rate. So this is all working together. Driving up interest rates, selling bonds, shrinking the amount of money in the economy. All this, doing in a fine-tuned way, says not to cause an inflation. And this central plan is, they are going to get it just like they've got their models, they've got their equations, they've got their massive calculus, that they're running model simulations. They've got all the resources in the world. They can print money. So they are using the best minds, the most sophisticated algorithms to try to get it just right. One other element that I should note is that the government has to pay interest on all the debt that it's taken on. And that debt in 2019, the interest that the government paid every year on the debt in 2019 was $375 billion. Over the next year, it'll be more than double that. And as interest rates go up, the Fed has to pay higher and higher interest rates on the debt that it bothers, on the bonds that it's pulling out there. Soon we're going to reach a point where the federal government, a federal government has to pay $1 trillion every year just on interest, on the debt. $1 trillion. The budget used to be around $3 trillion. A third of every dollar of the federal government, a third of every dollar that you're paying in taxes is going to go just to pay interest on the debt. That's $31 trillion debt, $1 trillion in interest payments, and it's growing. So that $1 trillion is a low estimate that $31 trillion is not going to end. So how does this end? Well, what is the probability that the Fed gets it just right? What is the probability that the Fed is so good at what it does and has shown such, it's being brilliant, that it manages to raise interest rates suck money of the economy just at the right amount as to cause prices to come down, price inflation to go away, but not drive us into recession. Well, I personally think the probability of that is very close to zero. The Fed basically missed the 2008-2009 financial crisis. It didn't see it coming. It printed huge amounts of money, plugged it into the economy, but the economy barely recovered. Productivity barely went up. It kept facing these emergencies which required it to print more money. Emergencies it never predicted. All last year, people were saying, be careful, inflation is coming, and the Fed was like, nah, just transitory, no big deal, no problem. So it did nothing. The Fed has a terrible track record, as you would expect, of being able to predict what will happen in the future and be able to deal with it effectively. Two scenarios that are possible. One is that the Fed raises interest rates and is committed to crushing inflation and will raise it and raise them and raise them until price inflation comes tumbling down. In that case, I predict a significant deep and lengthy recession. How lengthy, who knows, how deep, who knows. But it might not be, you know, this economy has this amazing resilience and amazing ability to rebound. So maybe it won't be that long, maybe it won't be that deep, but there's going to be a recession next year and it's going to be significant and it's going to be substantial and it will basically have the potential to kill the Biden presidency, a presidency which is already teetering. The second possibility, and this would happen, this would probably be more likely to happen if there was kind of a Trump in the White House rather than a Biden. Biden is weak. But that the Fed raises interest rates, inflation comes down a little bit and the Fed says, okay, we've done our job and they stop. They actually start to decrease interest rates because it's pressure from the White House, there's an election coming up, we don't want a recession, so there's no recession. Inflation comes down, interest rates have gone up a little bit, there's no recession, interest rates start coming down because the Fed is easing and then inflation starts going up again. That's exactly what happened in the early 1970s and mid 1970s. Every time the Fed would raise interest rates, they wouldn't do it enough as to actually bring inflation down. They would stop before it got there because they didn't want the recession, they didn't want the pain and then they would start lowering interest rates, inflation would start up again and ultimately we got stagflation as a consequence until Paul Volcker basically raised interest rates as much as necessary in order to crush inflation. And of course it wasn't just Paul Volcker, it was the deregulation of the Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. It was the tax reform under Ronald Reagan in 1982 or the tax changes, both increasing taxes and decreasing taxes. And it was the fact that it was Ronald Reagan in the White House and non-Jimmy Carter. All of that together is what ultimately brought inflation down. But none of that do we have right now. I think markets will generally view about public invictory in a week from now in the elections as a positive vis-a-vis inflation.  Almost sudden recession and if not a recession then more inflation. So it's likely inflation is going to continue because the Fed won't do enough. And if the Fed does enough, you'll get a deep recession. And that's what we had. So the volatility in the market, not going away. A stock's bottomed out, unlikely. Is a recession fully priced? I don't think so. I don't see it. And nobody knows how deep the recession will be and nobody knows when it's going to happen. So we're still in for volatile times. We're still in for huge amounts of uncertainty economically. There are going to be layoffs. Unemployment is going to rise. I wouldn't be surprised if it goes up above 6%. So no job I think out there is completely safe. I think tech, you're going to see some real layoffs in tech, but you're going to see some real layoffs across the board. You're seeing a slowdown in tech already. Apple is seeing it. Facebook is seeing it. Google is seeing it. It's, we're facing, I think, a tough 2023. That's my prediction. I mean, I hope Republicans coming in to the House and the Senate behave like adults. I hope what they ultimately do is kind of deal with Biden administration to cut spending. I think that's the only thing that will help. They can assist in trying to mitigate the impact of inflation and trying to mitigate the impact of rising interest rates and trying to mitigate the fear. An ultimate fear of government default, of government inability to pay back the debt or the interest payment on the debt getting so large as to be a real challenge. My bigger concern is that the current crop of Republicans coming into the House and Senate don't care about economics. They have no interest in economics. They're not pro-free markets in particular. They're not pro-limiting government spending.  They're not interested in bringing sanity to the economic sphere. So I'm worried. Thank you for listening or watching the Iran Brook show. If you'd like to support the show, we make it as easy as possible for you to trade with me. You get value from listening. You get value from watching. Show your appreciation. You can do that by going to iranbrookshow.com.  Also, if you'd like to see the Iran book show grow, please consider sharing our content and of course subscribe. Press that little bell button right down there on YouTube so that you get an announcement when we go live. And for those of you who are already subscribers and those of you who are already supporters of the show, thank you. I very much appreciate it.


So I was going to originally just kind of make a super cut of all the ridiculous parts of this video and just post that. But then as I was cutting it all together, I just thought, I can't just let this go. We've got to say something. Hello everyone, Dylan Schumacher, Citadel Defense and we are going to talk about this ATF interview with Face the Nation. Now I actually watched the entire 20 minute some interview and I think it's probably worth a watch. I'll try to drop a link. I found it on Twitter in the description below and you can go watch that for yourself. So you know that I'm not being overly cruel or unfair in how I have edited this because I've edited it down to about seven minutes of clips that we're gonna watch in and out here and we're gonna talk about the lies and incompetence. And before we get started here, this director of the ATF specifically I'm going to make fun of quite a bit.  In any event, he is completely, of course, not the person that should be in charge of this organization. Side note, of course, the ATF shouldn't even exist. They exist to police, alcohol, tobacco and firearms. All of those things are perfectly legal. So why do we need a police organization for that? All right, so here we go. This looks like a big variety of items here. What am I looking at? So, and Chris is here, he's one of our leading experts. Now, right away, right out the gate, you notice that he defers to Chris, the leading expert. If you've ever worked in corporate America, you understand exactly what's going on here, right? Some big honcho comes in, vice president, president, CEO, C level, whatever, and they actually don't know the technical topic. So what do they do? They bring an expert who knows the technical topic along with them to help them address questions, comments, concerns, right? That's a tried and true tactic, and there's honestly nothing wrong with that tactic in and of itself. However, as you'll see, he defers to Chris multiple times throughout this interview. So, Chris, I don't know if you want to walk us through. Correct, so as the director explained, I don't know if Chris, if you want to... So correct, and Chris, I don't know if you want to show the pistols and the glock switch. Chris, can a person 3D print the entire firearm? How long does it take to make something like that? It depends on the printer. Or even looks to him while he's saying something, he'll be saying information, but he's actually looking at Chris to confirm it and make sure he's not getting off track, right? Now, in big corporate America, whatever I understand why we do that, CEOs have a lot to handle and work on. The ATF is not that big. It's only like one or 2,000 employees, I think. Maybe I have to look that up, but it's pretty small as far as a federal organization goes. Additionally, we are talking about one of the most contested political issues in the nation. So anyone who is in charge of regulating alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, namely firearms, all the ATF really does, let's all be honest. Anyone who is in that role should very, very clearly know exactly what they're talking about. But in late empires, when communism takes over, positions of power are not awarded on competence, they're awarded on your allegiance to the political agenda. And that is exactly what you have here, as we will see throughout this interview. It's one of, and one of them is sort of the more conventional firearm, which is sometimes they're under the National Firearms Act, right? And the other one is sort of what I would call the attempt to get around it. So the way he sets this up is he has these different firearms on the table, right? And he's got like a full auto AK, and then he'll have an AK with a bump stock. And then he'll have a registered SBR and then a pistol with a pistol brace, right? And he's talking about all, these things are just ways to get around it. And you know, what we're really trying to do is just enforce the law, right? He's here to push the political agenda. That's all he does throughout this whole interview. How many rounds is it for? Fully automatic weapon. Government can have it. Military can have it. It's an antique. Some people, if they had it before, depending on 1986, they can have it, but otherwise, no. So very early in this interview, you understand that the ATF director doesn't actually know the law because hey, who needs the law when he can just make up rules and make up law as you go.  You have to have some special permitting. You have to purchase one that was manufactured before 1986. That's why they're so ungodly expensive, right? But you can own them. He's saying you can't. That's not true. That's not what the law says. You can own fully automatic firearms. There's just a mountain of paperwork and permitting to go through and they're very, very expensive because you have to purchase one that was manufactured before 1986. This one, which looks and operates just like it, this is a bump stocker test. How can you tell that? Sorry, where's the bump stock? Is there like a physical piece? Of course, right? How can you tell, right? These two things are the same. So the director's there, he's gonna talk about they're the same. That's what they do. They're the same thing. That's not true. A bump stock operates on one trigger pull per round. You're just pulling the trigger really, really fast. It just helps you do that, right? And he goes, oh, it's just a workaround. There are people who can pull the trigger without a bump stock, just manually, faster than a bump stock. Okay, in fact, that was presented in court. I can't remember if the firearms policy coalition presented that as evidence or if the GOA presented that as evidence. But it's been documented, presented in court. There are people who can pull the trigger faster. So are we gonna outlaw people's fast fingers now? And both of them can shoot right through this 75 round clip. And both of them can shoot right through this 75 round clip. I continue to love how they call it a clip, not a magazine. It's a magazine. That's been like, we just say that to her blue in the face, but they never seem to get it because they don't know what they're talking about. They don't care that they don't know what they're talking about. And they're just here to push a political agenda. These are not loaded. They're not loaded. They didn't actually explain to her that the guns aren't loaded before the interview. That's kind of a big deal. If I'm gonna sit down for a news interview thing and I'm gonna have a bunch of guns on the table, I'm gonna explain the four rules of firearm safety to who we're interviewing because maybe they wanna pick one up. Maybe they wanna actually understand what's going on here so we can have a productive interview. They didn't bother to do that. They didn't sit her down and demonstrate how to check if a gun's unloaded. They didn't sit her down and explain, hey, these guns are all unloaded just so you know. This is how we check. Let's just check on real quick. These are the four rules of firearm safety. They didn't do any of that. They just put a bunch of guns on the table and started talking to her.  Unbelievable. There is no reason you would use that for hunting. No, I do not believe you would use this for hunting. Not for the kind of hunting you're thinking. I mean, my God, why does everybody always go to hunting? The Second Amendment has zero, zero to do with hunting. It was never, hunting was not in the farthest reaches of anyone's mind when they wrote the Second Amendment. You know what was in their mind? Shooting red coats in the face. That's why we have the Second Amendment. It's pretty obvious, it's pretty clear. People in America should be equipped able with skills, tactics, gear, et cetera to fight and win wars. That's why we have the Second Amendment. If you're curious to learn more about that, I did just write a book that's out right now called Minuteman 101 and you should buy it and read it. This is tissue, large numbers of people at once. Notice how she says there, to shoot large numbers of people at once, right? She's there as a political commissar to help this political agenda along. But Chris, the expert who questionable skills, we'll get to that in a bit. But Chris, even he's uncomfortable saying these, like, he doesn't even feel comfortable going there. Well, let me just intervene in this. That's what happened in Las Vegas. So the director needs to jump in to make sure we get on the right political train here, right? Oh, yes, well, just so we're clear, that's what happened in Las Vegas. First of all, we still know nothing about the Las Vegas shooter, right? It's been years, there still hasn't been any actual information to come out of that in any kind of cohesive sense. So that's one. Number two, we still don't know what kind of weapon they, he, whoever used in that whole deal, right? They still don't even know their motivation. We still don't know how they got all the guns up. But we definitely know it was a bump stock. You've got to be joking me. Anybody with a slice of education on the topic knows he's just flat out lying. What's called a short barreled rifle. Now, here he talks about short barreled rifles. As you can shoulder a weapon, it makes it easier tactically to use to aim to fire, right? It's a more accurate, more lethal weapon. And my favorite part here is that when he talks about shoulder and gun, he's like, you can shoulder. He doesn't actually, you never held a rifle before, like in a real like AR, AK, whatever, like a fighting rifle, right? He doesn't do that. You know how people stand who actually know how to hold a rifle if they're gonna mock it up? They stand like this, right?  That's how we stand, right? It's this aggressive lean forward. It's the same way I would hold the rifle normally. I just punch my hands out because that's more comfortable to demonstrate where the rifle is, right? That's how people demonstrate holding a rifle. How do I know that? Because I've taken dozens of classes and I've done it myself and I've watched myself and other people demonstrate how to move the rifle around and that's what we do. That's the accepted, comfortable way to do it. You don't go, and then you hold the rifle. Nobody does that. Nobody holds a rifle like that. Who knows what they're doing? So clearly, he's never actually shot a rifle. Additionally there, he doesn't know what tactical means. It makes it tactically easier to use it. What does that sentence mean? Explain that to me. He can't, obviously. It makes it a more accurate, more lethal weapon. Well, not necessarily. Does it look easier to hit what you want? Yes, that's why rifles are superior. Okay, so I guess maybe we can give him that point. Don't we want guns to be accurate? Isn't that a desirable trait? Doesn't that make them more effective in hitting what we want and not hitting what we don't? Do we want weapons that are inaccurate? I mean, what kind of statement is that? Everybody would agree is a short barreled rifle because it's sold in one piece. The other one's the exact same thing, but it's sold in two pieces. So people are claiming no, no, no, that's a pistol brace. He has no idea what a pistol brace is. Or again, he's intentionally lying. A pistol brace, it can come in one piece. You can buy a firearm with a pistol brace attached. That's one piece. One piece, two piece has nothing to do with what a short barreled rifle is, right? It has to do with the stock and the ATF interpretation of the law and all of this. It has nothing to do with how many pieces it comes in.  So this is an NFA item. National Farmers Act item requires additional tax stamp for it, background check, waiting period. Registration. Registration with NFRTR. And then you have this, which is the GCA version of it which you can walk into the store and purchase in that configuration. Well, people are claiming that they could do that, right? Our rule says that these two things are to be treated the same. I love that it gets to the point where they're like, well, people are claiming that they could do that. They can do that. They had to. You know how many pistol braces are in circulation? It's something like over 10 million. So this isn't like some kind of far-fetched idea. This is something that the ATF approved formally, right? Went into circulation, went into sale. Now they're like, whoa, long, that's not actually, I mean, it's preposterous. Again, though, he doesn't care about truth. You gotta remember these people don't care about truth or logic or reason or the law or any of it. What they care about is manipulating what you perceive to get you to believe what they want. That's it. It's not a good faith discussion.  This poor interview lady, I mean, I know she's here to advance the agenda, so maybe we shouldn't be so gentle on her, but she, this, talking about like the ARs and the black ones, right? The AK is right next to her, the fully automatic AK, but because it has wood on it, she's like, well, no, the black plastic and the metal, that's what's scary.  You see it right here. Restricted law enforcement government use only. Same gun here, except this one isn't fully automatic. So right, so there's nothing on here that says only law enforcement until this thing comes along. This looks like it's a piece of a toy. It does. I love it, that the stamp on their government use only, like that, oh, that, that, first of all, he almost makes it sound like that's what makes it automatic. I know what he's saying. He's saying, no, that's why we stamped it because it is fully automatic. So, you know, only the government can have it because they're only, I don't know what, but then this one isn't written here, you know.  And then it's like, until this thing comes along and it's the 3D printed little dongle thing. You've seen this, right?  It's just a piece of plastic that goes in that, oh my gosh, watching the ATF try to struggle to adapt to the proliferation of 3D printing is hilarious. The 3D printing is gonna completely end gun control in this country and around the world, to be honest. So this is a privately made firearm. It has no serial numbers, no information on it. So that's what I didn't even know. That's also a ghost gun. This is a ghost gun. Yeah, see, so this is a ghost gun. Then you can make the ghost gun a fully automatic weapon too. I love that he throws out the term ghost gun. Oh, that's also a ghost gun. I didn't even know that. First of all, that lower looks anodized. Now, maybe I'm wrong, okay? I can't see it. They don't actually show a close up of it. So I guess we'll never know, but that lower looks anodized. And I'm thinking, I haven't seen a person. I'm sure this is what people have done it because some of you guys are really autistic, right? But who manufacture their own lower, right? Or cut out an 80% and then send it in and get an anodized. So I'm sure that happens. I'm just saying I have my doubts about that one in particular that they're showing. I also like he talks, he's gonna go on here to talk about ghost guns. Like they're somehow illegal or they're somehow bad or they're somehow a problem.  Simply put, there's no serial number on this. So if someone has shot up a group of people, you can't trace this to the person who pulled the trigger. Yeah, that is generally correct. I love how she tries to simplify the serial number discussion like, well, you need to trace it to who pulled the trigger. First of all, that's not what a serial number does. All serial number does is trace ownership of who purchased that firearm, right? It does nothing to prevent shootings, nothing, zero. You know, a couple of years ago, or maybe a year or two ago, I thought there was some case that came out that ruled that serial numbers don't have to be on guns. Does anybody know an update on that or has heard anything about that? I'd be curious to know more about that. But I love how she's trying to explain like, well, then you can't catch the bad guy who did it. Well, in truth, that has nothing to do with it whatsoever. People just have been scratching serial numbers off guns for a long time. People have been stealing guns, right? Like the serial number actually does nothing in solving the crime. They already have the gun that did it, right? Having the serial number doesn't really do much. Now they're gonna claim it does and that's how we do police work and trace the history of it and all this other stuff. But it has nothing to do with the person who actually pulled the trigger. It just has to do with who legally purchased it, went and where. And that's it! That doesn't give you much, to be honest. Because if it did, I don't know, maybe they would have less mass shooters, but that doesn't seem to be anything that they actually do. Is a privately made firearm ghost gun. This, it says, I mean, this feels metal and heavy and significant. This doesn't feel like something that came off a 3D printer. I love that again, this poor lady doesn't actually know what a ghost gun is. She doesn't understand that they print the receiver or the lower part of the pistol, right? The frame, sorry, the frame of the pistol. She doesn't understand that. And so she's like, well, it's metal. Like, how do you make this at home? And they're gonna go on to try to explain that to her. But again, they did zero prep with this poor lady coming into this interview. This was manufactured. And then the end user can take it with about 20 minutes of time and convert it or make it into a working firearm frame. And then buy the additional parts to put on the, to create the upper. And then they also installed a clock switch. This isn't just a ghost gun. This is a ghost gun with one of these attached. This is, I love what he's like, this isn't just a ghost gun. This is a ghost gun with a fully automatic, like ghost gun bad, but fully automatic, super bad, right? He just, again, he's there to push a political agenda. This poor lady has no idea what a ghost gun is. She doesn't understand what part is 3D printed and the frame that's printed. She doesn't understand that you can buy slides afterwards and put slides and barrels and parts in. Like, she doesn't understand any of that. And she's just being led through this thing, like, oh my God, this is also terrifying. It will, you'll pull the trigger once and it will keep firing until there are no more bullets. And you can shoot out that magazine, no matter how big it is, just with one pull of the trigger in fractions of a second. I will say at least he used the word magazine here and not clip again. However, it doesn't matter how big the magazine is, you can shoot out in fractions of a second. Well, that's not true really either. But again, he's trying to make it sound as terrifying as possible. If they're so concerned about Glock switches, how come I keep seeing videos on Twitter of like 13, 14 year old boys in Chicago with their Glock's all showing off their Glock's with their Glock's switches on them? How come you're not doing anything about that? So that's the frame he's gonna make a new gun for you. So, you've seen this before cause he's gotten a lot of flak for this about how he can't get that first one apart. Now, I'm willing to cut him a break here actually because he does get the second one apart right away, which makes me think that there was something wrong with the first one too, to begin with. But it's still comical and I love that he says the words, I can't get this one apart. After he tries multiple times, I love that they didn't cut this out and that this all got aired. It just makes it better. Now coming up is actually my favorite part. Basically what they do is they make this part here. This is like plastic. So this is the plastic piece with about 20 minutes of work they can make it into a working firearm and then they could buy the aftermarket parts and attach that, simply attach that on. And to buy those. Simply attach that on. And to buy those. Okay, this is my favorite part because he's been making this whole argument that you can print this thing at home, you can print the frame at home, then you can just buy a slide and just slap it on there and you're good to go. But then when he goes to demonstrate that, the slide doesn't fit. Now, if you've done any 3D printing or you know someone who does, in Minecraft obviously, the problem is there's not a fit. There's not a proper fit between the frame and the slide. And some of the tolerances are off or something needs to be adjusted. So 3D printing is not easy. If you're gonna do this, there's a lot more work that goes involved into it and refining and sanding and whatever.  But my favorite thing here is they obviously didn't do their homework. They just had this frame but it was never actually obviously been attached to a slide because it won't attach. So the tolerances aren't matching up, right? They didn't actually ever pre-match this. They don't know where they got it from. It was just some random frame that they had and he even tried to attach it but it won't attach and he just gives up because he realizes he's about to tank his entire argument of how easy and simple and dangerous this is because he can't get the slide on the frame. It's just, again, I can't believe this actually got aired. Whoever's in the propaganda department here, my friend, you should be fired and never work again. You failed miserably. If you're selling firearms parts alone, right, then it's not a frame or receiver. Parts are not regulated. And they're not regulated. Under the law, we're not allowed to do that. You would like to do that? Of course he would like to do that. He would love to regulate parts. He would love to remove all of these things from existence. That's obvious. Good luck regulating that stuff, by the way. What we did is we tried to work with the law that Congress gave us. I love how he goes on to say, we tried to work with the law that Congress gave us, which means we tried to push it as far as we can to control people as we can. But unfortunately, we just can't do that anymore. Like you said, 20 minutes. This is like the thing that even I could do. I love here that he says, oh, there's something even I could do. I guarantee you, he could not do it. I will bet all the money in my savings account. Actually, over parts, it's over what's called billets, which is just part of a receiver for this kind of gun, for an AR. And it's the sort of the un-machined metal part. Okay, okay. I love, I can't believe I put that they aired this. So even she is surprised that they're trying to regulate blank steel, right? Like even she's like, okay, well. Like she's surprised that they're trying to regulate bare metal before it's machined. Even she doesn't understand that. And it's like, that sounds crazy. Like it's just too good. This clip is a godsend. Chris, can a person 3D print the entire firearm? There are some versions of farms that you can 3D print. We do have an example here. That looks like a staple gun. This'll do some damage. This'll do some damage. I love that this thing's in wacky colors. And I have no idea where they got it or whatever. I'd be curious to know what the actual metal parts are on there if it's just, you know, if the one and done kind of the other whatever. But I love he's like, this'll do some damage. Like that's just, he's trying to make it as dramatic as possible while holding this Nerf gun like thing. It's just, oh man, it's too good. Right, I've seen these fellows, you know, fire them at the range. First of all, did you see how we grip that pistol? Right, he had the most limp wrist grip I've seen. He's not actually gripping it like he knows what he's doing. He's never held a pistol before. He's never been trained how to actually shoot a pistol because that's not how anyone who knows that they're doing grips a pistol. Right, when you grip a pistol and you know what you're doing, that's how you grip it. See how there's no daylight here, right? I'm gripping the gun all the way up. That's what I'm doing, right? I'm not, like you're not, I'm not fan, you know, I'm grabbing the pistol how it's meant to be grabbed. You can tell instantly by someone how someone picks up a pistol, whether they know what they're doing or not. And I guarantee you that that gentleman has no idea how to shoot an actual pistol. And even some very experienced, you know, there's a huge, these guns aren't made to be automatic weapons, pistols like that, right?  Not only does he not know how to shoot a rifle, right? But he's known to shoot a pistol either. He's got his arms bent in here and there's a kick up. The word he's looking for is recoil. That's the word you're looking for. It's called recoil management, you imbecile. But he doesn't know because he's never actually shot a pistol. He's never been trained how to shoot. He doesn't know what he's doing. He couldn't shoot a gun for the life of him.  So who was the owner of this fancy piece of equipment here? This is an example of some of, we have a couple of examples of some of the cartel-desired firearms here on the table. Can I take that? There's a patron, I'm sorry, there's a patron saint of drug traffickers. I went to Catholic school, they never told me that. This looks like, what is that? A sickle. A sickle, there's an owl, a skeleton, yes, a grim reaper. Are these real diamonds? I don't know that they are, we'd have to ask. Most of the weapons that go to the cartels are made in the United States. I love that they go into this whole cartel thing. And like, well, unfortunately, most of the guns that go to the cartel are made in the United States. Gee, I wonder where the cartel got the guns. Could it be the ATF who sold them to them? Do you remember Operation Fast and Furious? Because I do. I remember when the ATF sold a bunch of guns to the cartels and then promptly lost them.  Like, it's just, it's so incredibly great that they brought up the cartels. Who they sold guns to, unbelievable. The cartels would have a lot less guns if the ATF doesn't exist. So we could all just, you know, have that discussion. Considered rifles and they can be acquired by 18-year-old individuals. You know, and. That seems incredible. Here they're talking about how 18-year-olds can buy rifles, you know, and they got a 50 on the table. But yeah, 18-year-olds can buy guns. That is incredible. God bless America. So those were all the juiciest parts that I could personally find that I thought were worth commenting on. So I hope you've enjoyed this little journey. I hope it's been a wonderful time. Never forget to laugh at your enemies because they are miserable. They are sad. They have no lives. And all they can do is lie in order to try to convince people with their lies to do what they want. Imagine how joyless their existence must be. Do brave deeds and endure. Well, thank you for sharing all this with us. It's very educational.