The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is The Iran Brookshow. Fantastic weekend. Looking forward to a great rest of your week. Today we're going to review two videos, one by Tekka Carlson and one by Matt Walsh. Tekka Carlson talking about the Lika, Jack Tejera, and his take on that. I think you will find it interesting. Anyway, I'll try to make it interesting for you if you don't, but point the video.  Anyway, we'll talk about Matt Walsh and his idea that we're all better off because slavery once existed in history. So we're all better off for that history. And then we'll talk about life expectancy in the United States and declining life expectancy in the United States. Kind of a sad story. But for that, I have one image, but I don't have any video, so I can take my headphones off for that one. But in order to do the Tekka Carlson and the Matt Walsh, we're going to have to keep them on. All right, as you know, Super Chat, you can ask questions about anything pretty much. Thank you, Jonathan. Thank you, Marlene, starting us off with some stickers. You can ask questions about anything. Priority is given to questions of $20 and above. And yeah, please jump in, help support the show, get your questions answered to win-win for everybody. And it's, of course, the trade, right, the famous trade. You get value from the show, and you support the show, providing value to the show. Also, you can support the show on a monthly basis. You're on bookshow.com.  And always email me at Iran at Iranbrookshow.com. All right, let's jump in with, let's see, I think we're starting, let's start with Tekka Carlson. So this is Tekka Carlson about the leak of Top Secret documents by this young guy, this 21-year-old. First, he's going to talk about kind of what these documents, what we've learned from these documents.  He has divorced himself completely from the truth. The truth just has no standing, I don't think anymore in his mind. He says and he spins and he interprets the news in a way that appeals to his audience and that is really all he cares about. And he plays, I think, to certain political wins that are consistent with his view. But literally, he has divorced himself completely from the truth. I think this has become, this is maybe most evident in the, you know, I've documented this with the January 6th and other stuff. But maybe the most evident example of this is really what we're learning from the emails and texts from Tekka Carlson and others at Fox. But in particular, Tekka Carlson around the claims of the stolen election around 2020, what they thought of it, what they believed about it, and then what they've actually said. And this is all coming to the forefront as a consequence of the Dominion lawsuit. And we'll hear a lot more about that because I think the trial in front of a jury starts tomorrow. But Tekka Carlson has been revealed in those emails and those texts to be a bullface liar. And of course, the January 6th stuff is obviously part of that.  My favorite of all the videos I've ever shown with Tekka Carlson is the one where he talks about American greatness, what makes America great, and it was scenery and God. Scenery and God are what the things that make American great. You know, we have a beautiful country, we have a God fearing country. Those are the two things that make America great.  But anyway, and it's not, you know, so that's Tekka Carlson. But this is an extension of the story I talked about with you yesterday, I think it was, about Marjorie Taylor Greene. They are now the same part of the political spectrum. Tekka Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene are both part of the nutty right, the nutty great. And their attitude towards the revelations around these top secret documents, which are very different. And I'll talk about this very different than Snowden. You know, it's so revealing of the soul, it's so revealing of their politics, it's so revealing of their view of the world. It is truly, truly horrific. By the way, let me know about the audio. If the audio is good, I'm still playing around with the settings here. I think it's fine, but let me know if it's too loud, too soft, too crazy, whatever. The music is still wrong, the opening sequence, at least in my headphones, sounds completely wrong. So I don't know, I don't know, maybe it's the headphones, maybe it's the settings of the headphones, I don't know. But other than that, just let me know if the audio is good. Thank you, Daniel, I appreciate the support. All right, let's jump in. So, Krakasin is basically talking here about what the documents revealed. He says, he opens up the segment, I won't go through that, but he says basically, we've been told two realities about the Ukraine War. One, that this is a war between Ukraine and Russia, not a war between the United States and Russia. The United States is not a party to this war. He says that's one truth, we are being told by the mainstream media and by our politicians. And the second thing that we've been told by the mainstream media and by our politicians is that Ukraine is winning that war, which is bizarre because certainly early on in the war, we were told Ukraine would lose by everybody, everybody in the media, particularly in the mainstream media. But yes, more recently, Ukraine has been perceived as winning, or at least not losing anymore. And there's a big difference between not losing and winning. I don't know anybody who says that Ukraine is definitely going to win this war, Ukraine is definitely winning this war in a sense of kicking the Russians out of Ukraine. But it's certainly the momentum shifted and the momentum has been on the Ukrainian side since the first few months of the war. I've said that, a lot of people said that, and that's the truth. Anyway, Tucker thinks that these documents have shown that both of these things are wrong. Tucker Carlson, somebody says he used to be with Cato. Yes, I mean he used to be a bow tie libertarian. He used to be a conservative libertarian type. He used to be pro-free markets, no more. He used to be a pro-American, no more. He used to have a certain understanding of the founding fathers and the founding principles of this country, no more. He has basically abandoned America and embraced, you know, first of all embraced his audience, which his audience is not, I don't think a fundamentally pro-American audience, but he's embraced the nationalist, superficial, conspiracy theory laden view of America. And what he really is embraced, and we'll see this, what he's really embraced is, if the left holds a certain view, I'm against it. So he's embraced the, no matter what, we have to be against the left. He's embraced, they hate the left at all costs, nothing else matters. That's the view he's embraced, and that's the view. Sadly, much of the Republican Party has embraced and many, many conservatives have embraced. So that's the view that we have. That's the view that he has. All right, let's see. Cool, so let's play this. I gave you the context, and let's play this. Let me know if you can hear him well, if there's any problem with his view. And begin to show up, among other places, on Twitter. And the slides show that this is in fact not Ukraine's war. It's our war. The United States is a direct combatant in a war against Russia. Now this is a bullface lie. The slides do not show that. They do not show any combat between the United States and Russia. They do not show American troops engaged in any combat activities with the Russians. This is just complete. Let me just adjust the volume. I'm told it's a little loud. I would use the volume a little bit. You'll have to tell me if that's better. You know, that's just not true. What is true is as part of a NATO, it looks like a NATO, European and American, special forces grouping, that is primarily there to train Ukrainians and potentially to provide some intelligence from the back. There are some American special forces troops there. They are making special forces troops, my guess, I'm guessing now. I have no intelligence or knowledge. My guess is there's some special forces troops in parts of Russia. This probably special forces troops of America. We know that there are American troops in 120 different countries. Yes, there are troops, American troops in Ukraine. There is zero evidence in the slides that he is referring to. Do not show. Do not show. Americans engaged in combat. American engaged in any kind of life fire conflict with the Russian. What they show again is what we know. They're training and supporting the Ukrainians. We know the United States is providing intelligence to Ukraine. It pisses off the Russians. These special forces troops there are there to provide intelligence. They provide maybe developing a strategy. That's not a surprise. But the idea that the United States is engaged in fighting with Russia is just a lie to try to rile up his audience to be even more against this war. Ultimately with the goal which Taka has embraced completely of supporting Putin. You know, Taka is clearly on the side of, you know, Putin and basically right-wing authoritarians, whether it's Orban or Putin who embraced religion who share with Taka, what do they share with Taka? What is the one thing that unites them all? Hatred of the left. It's the only thing that matters. The only thing that matters is hatred of the left. And since Putin hates the left, he must be a good guy. And since Orban hates the left, he must be a good guy. All right, so back to Taka. No, he's not talking about support. He's talking about the United States, you know, being at war, that these documents show the United States at war with Russia. Again, both ways unequivocal lie. It's war. It's our war. The United States is a direct combatant in a war against Russia. Direct combatant. Direct combatant. Speak, American soldiers are fighting Russian soldiers. American soldiers are fighting Russian soldiers? Evidence? Maybe you're very good at taking documents and showing us out of context quotes from those documents. Where are the documents? Documents out there. They've been leaked. They're floating around the web. Why is there no document showing proof that American troops are in direct combat operations with Russian troops? Because such a statement does not exist. So this is not a regional conflict in Eastern Europe. This is a hot war between the two primary nuclear superpowers on Earth. So this is, again, a talking point of the right.   Because, hey, the Russians have nukes, and they will use the nukes, and we need to be afraid of them. These are the conservatives.  But really, the shift happened. I think a big shift happened when, you know, Donald Trump went and almost hugged the leader of North Korea, called him his friend, bromance, all of this. Who cares about the thuggery? Who cares about the fact that they have weapons and threaten the United States? No, no, no, no. We like these guys. These guys are good guys, and we can negotiate with them, because they hate the left. That's right. That's all that you need. I'm sure, I'm sure. I'm convinced that the Buddha dictator of North Korea hates the left. All right. And yet this war has never been formally declared. It has not been authorized by Congress.  It is a crime. There is no law. There is no war, and there is no crime. Congress has approved in its budgets legally. You might not approve of it. We might not think it's a good thing, but Congress has approved legally allocations of money and weapons to Ukraine that has been part of the defense budget. So, I mean, again, there is no war between the United States and Russia, not yet anyway. There will be nothing yet. The second thing we learn from these slides is that despite direct U.S. involvement, Ukraine is in fact losing the war. Again, nothing in these documents show that Ukraine is losing the war. What these documents show is that Ukraine is in trouble, that Ukraine has a particular shortage of ground-to-air missiles, that Ukraine is right now in a stalemate with Russia. It does not show Ukraine losing the war. It shows much more so if you read the documents and if you scan all of the documents, that Russia is indeed has lost the war. It's already lost the war. I've explained how Russia has lost the war. Even if it ends today with Russia occupying vast territories within Ukraine, Russia has lost the war because it has basically allowed NATO to expand. It has created Ukrainian nationalism that is going to live on for generations. It's bonded Ukraine to Europe in a way that Ukraine was never bonded to Europe. It makes it much more likely for Ukraine to join the European Union and to maybe even become a member of NATO in spite of Russia's... From any respect, from any strategic respect, Russia has not achieved a single one of its goals. Indeed, it has taken massive setbacks. I've explained the fact that Finland now has joined NATO. Finland has a much, much, much, much longer border. Indeed, NATO's border with Russia has more than doubled because of the size of the Finnish border with Russia. Finland and potentially in a few months, Sweden, much more important NATO members and much bigger threat NATO members to Russia than Ukraine could ever be. So, no, strategically, from every strategic perspective, Russia has lost this war. It's devastated its economy. Its economy is in shambles. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise. It's just not true. They're running massive deficits, which they cannot finance. And they are desperately selling oil in the markets at huge discounts. They are struggling in every respect. The Russians have lost many more troops than the Ukrainians. You'll see in a minute, Tarkovsyn lying about that as well. And Ukraine isn't winning. That is true. Not yet, anyway. The momentum was theirs in this winter. The momentum is stalemate. Basically, there's a stalemate across the entire front. But remember, Khakiv and Gerson, they were occupied by the Russians, were liberated by the Ukrainians in the fall in dramatic fashion and in fashion that nobody, including Tarkovsyn or anybody, expected. But the most important thing is not what I think. The most important thing is that Tarkov is lying. That is, none of these ideas that Ukraine is losing the war is in the documents. Ukraine has a problem, a munition problem, in particular in its ground to air missile capabilities. But remember, from day one, the, quote, experts believed Ukraine would crumble and that Russia would take them over very quickly. Seven Ukrainians were being killed for every Russian. That's just absolutely not true. Not in the documents and not true. Now, it is true that these documents were doctored by the Russians. And there was a version of these documents that was put out by the Russians on Russian Telegram after clearly they had changed the numbers. Now, you would think that an American journalist, the most watched journalist in America would know this, that an American journalist on the most watched show in America would check his facts, would actually say, this is Russian propaganda. But no, Tarkovsyn has become a spokesman for Russian propaganda. He has become a tool of the Russians. And as a consequence, he is just mouthing off Russian propaganda.  Every number I've seen reported by every intelligence agency I've seen out there in the world shows that the Russians have lost many more troops than the Ukrainians. Now, there's ambiguity about the numbers. It could be that the Ukrainians have lost more troops than people are assessing. It could be that the Russians are a little bit less, but seven to one is a bold face unequivocal lie.  We're very good at calling out the left when they lie. About economics, about slavery, about the past, about whatever. We need to be just as equally bold in calling out Tarkovsyn when he lies. Ukrainian air defenses have been utterly degraded. They haven't been utterly degraded. They are running out of ammo. They are running out of the missiles. But the Patriot missiles, the Patriot system that Ukraine now has has not been damaged. It just, it needs more ammo. And the rest of the Ukrainian air defense systems need more ammo. But remember, Ukraine, as compared to Russia, had no military, had very little, very small military at the beginning of this war. Russia had the mightiest military, the second most powerful military in the world, supposedly. Russia still, still. Russia, as a year and three months, two months into the war, still does not have control of the skies of Ukraine. Why is that? If it's true, as Tarkovsyn tells us, that the Ukrainian air defense system is utterly being degraded, then why isn't Russia controlling the airspace of Ukraine? Which they are not. It's because the Ukrainians still have an air defense system that is knocking Russian airplanes out of the sky, stunning to me, stunning.  And the fact that the Russians couldn't do that is maybe the biggest testament for the weakness, the weakness of the Russian military of anything else. They couldn't get superiority. That's because their planes suck, to put it mildly. And Ukraine has a western weaponry that the Russians don't know how to deal with. I'll just note that the West, I guess the only exemplar of this is Israel. Israel has always dealt really, really well with Russian air defense systems. They've always neutralized those. They've always managed to find ways not to have the airplanes knocked out of the sky by Soviet, by Russian and Soviet air defense systems. Superior Western technology. Superior Western technology. Let's see what else... Ukraine is losing. The Biden administration is perfectly aware of this. They're panicked about it, but they have lied about this fact to the public. Just two weeks ago, for example, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin told the U.S. Senate that Russian military power is, quote, waning. That's a fact. By the way, that is an absolutely unequivocal fact. I'm no fan of the Secretary of Defense or of Biden or anybody, but the fact is that Russian military strength is waning. It might be a little too moderate, a little too late, but that's not a lie, and yet Tucker Carlson is going to say it's a lie and it's a crime. In other words, Russia is losing the war. No, that's not what it says. Russian military force is waning does not mean Russia is losing the war. Again, it's unbelievable to me that his audience buys into these clear, obvious logical fallacies. He said waning and now he's saying losing the war. Those are not the same thing. You can wane and still win. You can wane and being a stalemate. Why do people listen to this guy? Because they don't engage, I think, in the critical thinking necessary. And no, I mean the real reason people listen to this guy is because he provides them with the kind of intellectual ammunition to attack the left, because that's the only thing that matters, attacking the left. That was a lie. Not a lie. That is a crime. But Lloyd Austin has not been arrested for committing that crime. Instead, the only man who has been taken into custody, or likely ever will be, is a 21-year-old Massachusetts Air National Guardsman who leaked the slides that showed that Lloyd Austin was lying. Lloyd Austin was not lying, one. And two, note, he leaked the slides. Did he leak the slides for some agenda? Was he a whistleblower? No. Did he leak the slides because he was working as a foreign agent? No. He leaked the slides as far as we know because he wanted to look like a big man on the block or in discord. And Tuck has no problem with this. Absolutely no problem with this. You know, who leaked slides that are inconvenient, let's say, to Biden, therefore, he's a good guy. He's not a bad guy. He's a good guy. He's a hero, just like Marjorie Taylor-Green said. And by the way, as she said, he's white. What was it? White, male, and Christian. White male and Christian. I included heterosexual, although we don't even know that, but white male and Christian. So he must be a good guy. How could he be anything other than a good guy? White male and Christian and did something that embarrassed Biden. He should get the Nobel Peace Prize. All right, I want to skip ahead here. I mean, just, he shows clips of CNN going after this kid, justifiably in my view. So this 21-year-old Air National Guardsman from Massachusetts is not a whistleblower, CNN explains, with the help of the many intelligence agency figures it has now hired as analysts. No, he's not a whistleblower. He's a criminal, because he... Is he not a criminal? I mean, I find it interesting. What was Stucker's Carlson's position on Snowden? Who was a whistleblower? And a devastating whistleblower, and a whistleblower for individual rights. But what was his opinion? Well, I don't know exactly what Stucker's opinion was. I can tell you what Trump's opinion was.  Pompeo, who is Trump's Secretary of State, wanted to hang the guy.  He was the worst kind of traitor. Now, maybe because now he lives in Russia they think he's a good guy. I don't know. It's hard for me to project what some of these people actually think about the world. But Snowden was a whistleblower. I think Snowden was a hero. He's not a whistleblower. He doesn't have an agenda. Plus, maybe he is. We'll find out, I guess. But why is this whistleblower good guy, other whistleblowers, bad guys? Is it because that he's embarrassing the left? I think so. I think there's only one lens by which these people view the world. Good for the left, bad for the left. He is, unlike the people who run our government, quote, hungry for power. And because this 21-year-old was so hungry for power federal law enforcement had to swing into action with unfamiliar speed and efficiency and apprehend him. He was that threatening. Now, keep in mind, as of tonight he was distributing secret information. He was distributing top-secret documents. And what are they supposed to do? Now, I'm very critical of intelligence agencies. I'm very critical about the amount of secrets that we have in this country. But these are top-secret documents. What are you supposed to do? Just leave him alone? Let him continue doing it? Not swing into action? Not arrest him? It's, you know, I just want to point these things out just to show you the bias, the mentality that is so biased it can't think straight and can't really critique him because nobody's critiquing him. I mean the left is, but the left is wacky. So the left critiques him for this and also for a bunch of other things. And I haven't seen anybody critique him specifically for this. But where's the critiques on the right? Where the people basically pointing out to Republicans that this guy is just a bull-faced liar that nothing he says should be trusted and believed in. Why is he still as popular as he is? I mean, I have to admit, and I don't like saying this, but I have to admit that watching Tucker Carlson and listening to what he says and knowing how popular he is is more depressing, if you will, to me than almost anything else in the culture because it used to be that there was at least some element of some sanity on the right that opposed the left. But now there's nobody. There's just no sanity. You know, I never liked, what's his name? The guy who came before Tucker Carlson was the most popular guy who left Fox under a cloud of something. But, you know, he was bad, he was terrible. Bill O'Reilly, thank you, Bill O'Reilly.  But Bill O'Reilly was nowhere near, nowhere near as dishonest as this guy is. There was some little bit of, as awful as he was, some little bit of consistency and a certain type of statist integrity to him. This is just unbelievable, just unbelievable. All right, let's go to another unbelievable one. Oops, not Tucker Carlson. We'll go to Matt Walsh. Here's another conservative, another guy on the right, and I know I'm going to be criticized for criticizing conservatives.  All you do is criticize the right. But Scott isn't here today, so maybe I can get away with this and nobody will call me on it. So let's talk about this particular video of Matt Walsh's. It's truly stunning, really stunning in its stupidity more than anything else.  This is beyond ideological. This is just, yeah, there's no ideological issue here. This is just plain stupidity. All right, oh there, Scott is here. There we go. I was wondering why nobody was defending Tucker Carlson, so maybe he's here after all. Maybe he decided not to defend Tucker Carlson today. All right, let's, oh where is it? Let me find Matt Walsh. There's Matt Walsh. So this is Matt Walsh talking about slave reparations, a reparations of slavery which he's against, which I'm against, and he starts it off about lots of reasons for it, and then he goes into this other reason why slave reparations should be opposed. And all of this from the context of, I can't think of a more immoral, irrational idea than today paying slave reparations. One could argue about right after the Civil War where the reparations should have been paid, and today to pay slave reparations is to buy into so many fallacies and is a purely collectivistic view that I reject completely. But let's listen to at least one of the reasons Matt Walsh thinks that slave reparations are wrong. Of course, that's only one argument against the reparations idea. There are many more and better ones. I've outlined most of them on the show at various points in the past, but today I'd like to talk about a different argument against reparations, one that is by our culture's standards rather unspeakable, which doesn't mean that it's wrong. In fact, it normally means precisely the opposite. Really, so things that unspeakable are usually the opposite in our culture? That's a very scary position to take, Matt. And wrong, just plain wrong. Luckily, we're still not in a world in which the unspeakable is right. Not yet. We might be one day, but not yet. A guy named Wilford Riley, who's a college professor with a decent social media following who also happens to be a black man, made this point on Twitter yesterday. Here's what he tweeted.  Pointing out something this self-evidently true isn't justifying slavery, which was obviously terrible for slaves and existed globally in 1850. But no one arguing for that $5 million today in LA is or has ever been a slave. All right, so I want to talk about a couple of things here, but I want to make a small point and then a bigger point. The small point is we're talking about slavery. We're talking about slavery in America. We're talking about slavery of blacks. In America, I don't know, it seems so underhanded and wrong and I don't know what we go with this, but to say, which was obviously terrible, terrible, right? Justifying slavery, which was obviously terrible for slaves. Terrible. It's terrible the words you would actually come up with. Terrible. I don't know.  Think about the number of slaves who were tortured, beaten, killed, murdered, raped, all the things that happened to slaves torn away from their families from their kids from their parents, separated, lived under slavery for several generations. Think about that. Think about that. Is that terrible? There's something undestated about calling that terrible. It's one of the great evils one of the great evils that men have done to other men. It's pretty bad. It's pretty bad, right? So it terrible seems like an understatement. And then he says for slaves and existed in any ads globally in 1850. Globally? I mean, yeah, a lot of countries had slavery. Globally, Chinese as far as I know did not have slaves, not the kind of slaves that we in America had the Arabs had slaves. I don't think in India, I don't think British India had slave. Indeed, by 1850 the English had banned slavery not only in all of their colonies but they banned the trade and they were in the high seas stopping whatever trade they could.  The Ottomans before them had it but by 1850 you know, I guess the Ottomans probably had some slavery but this idea that existed globally in 1850 as if well, yeah. So we were just the same as every other country and don't make too big of a deal out of it because it's just a global phenomenon that's existed since 1850. It existed in 1850. Everybody was doing it. Again, the British were way ahead of us. Yes, it existed in Brazil. Pretty bad. In other parts of Latin America Brazil was the worst, I think and the last one really to eradicate slavery. But what do you have to add existed globally? Who are you trying to appease here? The people who say, oh, well, slavery wasn't a big deal for American history. No, it is a big deal. To a large extent it's a big deal because of the kind of country America claimed to be. The kind of country the funny the country was established as it was a country of individual rights. It was a country of equality. It was a country of freedom. And this is a slap in the face of those principles. So it's a big deal for America that we had slaves and we should acknowledge that it doesn't diminish the greatness of the country. It doesn't diminish the fact but slavery is an evil should have never been part of this country and was not part of capitalism. Never part of capitalism. Indeed, it was negation of capitalism. The reason why North was so much richer than the South is because it didn't have slavery. We'll get to that point later again. So I just want to point that out but I think the more interesting part is earlier, right? It's this argument that is made that Matt really latches on to this. And existed globally in 1850.  So this idea that black Americans are obviously better off on average than they would be had their ancestors never come to America. Really? Because what this does is it really posits two alternative scenarios. Two alternative scenarios. One is that they stayed in Africa and the other is that they are slaves in America. And yes, the generation today is better off for being in America than being in Africa but are those the only two alternatives? I mean, there's a third alternative which is, if we're going to rewrite history is my favorite alternative and that is that blacks would have emigrated to America in the late 19th century early 20th century maybe even mid 19th century as labor was required in this big country that was growing and hard labor workforce was needed and maybe they would have gone to Africa and paid them well in order to bring them over and what would they be today? They'd be much better off. Why are there only two alternatives? How about come to the United States as slaves? How about come to the United States as workers? Citizens? Immigrants? Because that's unthinkable. That is not a possibility. Only Europeans really were welcome to come to the United States as workers although we did bring in Chinese for a while until we stopped bringing in the Chinese because this whole idea of the whole framing of it is better off than they would have stayed in Africa as if this somehow makes their experience the experience of their ancestors not the experience of people today, right? Now again, this is all in the context of something wrong, evil, which is reparations this is why reparations don't make any sense but the whole framing of it the whole framing is wrong here it's collectivistic and it's so limiting historically. Pointing out something in 1850 but no one arguing for that $5 million today in LA is or has ever been a slave. That's the key point. Pro-POC affirmative action has been the law since 67.  I'm not advocating for more of it not saying you're justifying you're not saying any of that I just think it's a stupid way of looking at the world it's a collectivist way of looking at the world and it's a you're limiting these historical possibilities if we're opening history up to alternatives then there should be an alternative where they emigrate here and they do just amazing as other immigrant groups have done as blacks who have come to America as immigrants have done very very well look at the Caribbean blacks who have come here look at the Nigerian blacks who have come here as immigrants and they've done phenomenally well. That is obviously not the point the point is that the push for reparations rests on the notion that black Americans are in a considerably worse spot today than they would have been had their ancestors never been brought here as slaves. No that's not the point and that's dishonest to claim that the point is that they are worse off for having been slaves and that they would be far better off had they been in this country not slaves nobody is comparing them to what they would have done in Africa what they're comparing them to is what they would be in the United States had they not been slaves imagine if in 1776 there were lots of slaves in America already in 1776 not 1770 when was the constitution passed 1789 imagine if as part of the constitution convention slaves had been freed then those slaves that had been freed would be a lot better off today than blacks are today because they would have had all those decades being free and accumulating capital and accumulating property and living a good life and all of them they wouldn't have suffered the consequences so imagine if they had been free when the constitution was ratified which is what should have happened historically but why is this such a hard point why is this convoluted you'll see he'll get really convoluted in a minute why is this convoluted stuff and the whole argument on reparations is easy this isn't the point Scott stop being dishonest yourself to say that we must repair this damage damage that black Americans are currently experiencing they say but they are experiencing damage today as a consequence of slavery doesn't justify reparations but of course they are and Jim Crow laws those had no effect and they have no effect on people today of course they did it's no excuse for the black community it shouldn't be an excuse for them but they don't deserve any reparations because the harm was not done to them as individuals but are they worse off if they'd been free freed in 1789 with the blacks who are the ancestors of those blacks who were freed be better off or worse off today that from an economic perspective is a no brainer of course they'd be better off if you believe freedom matters if you don't believe freedom matters then okay but of course they'd be better off that doesn't justify reparations but let's acknowledge that at least the tune of $5 million or maybe $75 million black Americans today are the furthest removed from that historic atrocity and yet should be paid the most in restitution for it that's the claim but this is a false notion in fact it seems rather clear that black Americans are doing better here today than they would be had their ancestors generations ago never been brought to these shores but that is not the alternative that is an alternative you are postulating for you know completely randomly and arbitrarily given the history of the United States and given the history of slavery in the United States we can prove this point by simply asking which African country anyone asking for reparations would prefer to live in the answer of course is none of them now you might offer the rebuttal that if slavery never existed institution at all then Africa itself would be in a better place and better shape and maybe indeed black Americans would be better off there but this seems highly unlikely and it also ignores the fact that Africans participated in slavery and the slave trade as much as they were victims of it not to really as much they participated as much as they were victims of it you know maybe but that's a pretty strong statement to make without some strong evidence mention if we're reimagining the world without African slavery then we have to also imagine it without all other forms of global slavery wouldn't that be cool if we could imagine a world without any slavery anywhere that's kind of the world for the most part we live in today I mean there's still some slavery in a few places we'd like to eradicate that and we'd like to live in that world isn't that a good thing wouldn't that be a reimagined world in which we're all better off somehow African slavery was merely one variety one offshoot of this global institution and now we have totally in that point rewritten the history of the world in a way so dramatic that it's absolutely impossible to say which individuals today would end up worse or better in this alternate universe wouldn't you have to say that if in this alternate universe they'd never been slavery we'd all been free from the beginning and there was this recognition of slavery being bad which means a recognition of the value of the individual then wouldn't you say that we'd all be better off isn't that pretty strong statement is that a really awful statement to make by the way Mark Thomas says there's quite a bit of evidence for what for the fact that blacks participate in the slave trade of course I know that but is that it's just as much that they're just as guilty as anybody else always have been you know really I mean huge big no question but really do we really want to do we really want to make that equivocation exactly do we know that for a fact I don't think we know that if you go back in time and get rid of slavery from the entire world this is so stupid you have just it's impossible to say what the world looks like right now yeah okay there's some truth to that because everything is different yeah okay what's your point actually what we can say is that we all end up worse all of us today would be in a worse spot if slavery never existed at all across the entire globe all of us are worse off all of us are worse off now you'll get why in a minute this unbelievable right because a change that significant would likely shift the course of events in a way that would mean none of us would even exist it would be a world full of other people who are not us did you get that so if history had been different none of us would be born right our parents would have married other people and the great great great great great great great great great great great grandparents would have married other people so their parents wouldn't even exist because everything would have been different so it's good that the holocaust occurred because it generated some of the people because today it's good that communism and Mao Tung they killed tens of millions of people god forbid those people might have been alive they might have married some of the people that got married anyway and there would have been different people in the world I mean how does this guy how do you get away with this stupidity it's not even evil or wrong it's just stupid how do you why would you even go there don't you see how stupid this is before you say this stuff don't you self edit don't you monitor what's going to come out of your mouth I mean yeah if if anything in history would have been different different people would be around today okay so what these are talking points that are prepared this is clearly prepared this he's got a script this is not a stream of consciousness this is just stupidity on steroids so I know that I benefit today from virtually everything my ancestors did everything he benefits today from everything his ancestors did including the rape pillaging murder destruction everything because he wouldn't be here if those things hadn't happened I think did to them because if any of that had not happened there's a very good chance that I never would have come into being and as I see it I benefit from being if the other option is not being so we should we should have a celebration of every event in history equally because all those events the good events the bad I don't think you can say bad events because if those bad events haven't happened I wouldn't even be here I don't know I mean when you go with with this kind of nonsense I have no idea so where do we land after all of this you know it's it's absurd once you get into this conversation well let's get rid of this whole huge part of history it's absurd man you got into this kind of figure out the equation you did it it becomes immediately ridiculous yes and what does that mean for the reparations discussion well it means that the discussion is totally incoherent and stupid it means that yes but now for this reason any reparations plan is an arbitrary policy resting on a whole series of totally unsupported and wildly speculative assumptions about the way things would be right now if they weren't the way that they actually are and the best we can say about that assumption the assumption that blacks in this country are worse off today because of slavery is that it is a base of course the worse off today because of slavery I mean I don't know you know if Matt's ancestors being slaves he would not be where he is today probably useless theory but we can what we can really say about it is that it's a dubious conclusion based on fanciful and pointless hypotheticals yeah which you are supporting and promoting and arguing for while doing this all you have to say is reparations are an evil idea because they reject the idea of individual agency individual responsibility they are penalizing individuals who are innocent and benefiting individuals who did nothing to deserve this benefit and who are who are not victims force was not imposed on so reparations for what for the fact that a hypothetical I want reparations you know I'm Jewish I'm sure without the holocaust and without programs in eastern Europe I would be better off today because my family would have built up some capital than I would be otherwise so hey I mean reparations are a stupid idea but that doesn't justify going into these ridiculous arguments that people like Matt engage in I don't know it just seemed the whole thing is just absurd why spend I mean this guy I'm sure this video is being seen by hundreds of thousands of people just like people watch the stuff they embrace the stuff they engage in the stuff they really love the stuff and I don't get it I don't get it so I'm here just to point out the stupidity the fact that this is all just wrong I think I'm going to skip the life expectancy stuff because we've already gone an hour and I'm going to go to the super chat and encourage you to ask more super chat questions and see how long we can go we already we've only raised $100 so we've got $550 still to raise in terms of our super chats so hopefully there's some people out there we've got 135 people watching live that's a pretty good number you know we just need five bucks from each person and we can easily make this so a lot of you probably are not regular live listeners to your Unbookshows so if you'd like to support a value for value it'd be great if you just got on and put that button underneath and made a small financial contribution to the show and help us the show survives thrives, grows because of support by you you know what I did notice this is just funny I noticed that when I don't do shows the number of subscribers goes up and when I do do shows the number of subscribers goes down so the more shows I do the more negative subscriptions they are the more people leave because I say things that offend people and the fewer shows I do and people just listen to past shows or my lectures or whatever the more people join up so anyway it's kind of funny but please if you're listening and you value what I do and you think what I do has value if you value what I do it's the same thing I'm repeating myself then please support the show get on the super chat, ask a question or just use the stick to support it twenty dollars, fifty dollars a hundred dollars, five hundred dollars you know I don't think you can do more than five hundred dollars but all of that is good and it'll help us get to the goal and again if everybody listening right now just does four bucks we basically reached our goal so four bucks everybody can afford four bucks and I think the value that I provide is worth four bucks alright let's jump into the super chat I will do declining life expectancy on a different show Marilyn thank you anonymous user thank you Paul Cohen just for being excellent oh thank you I appreciate that Adam says font intelligence on sites open to non-coms of the national god my guess is that someone was counting on some dolt leaking this stuff history teaches about the bodyguard of lies your opinion I don't know I don't like speculating about these things when I don't really know I've do you remember that the guy who ultimately turned out to be trans who leaked a bunch of stuff and he was a cloak somewhere and he just like was faxing stuff out and it was also a bunch of top secret information so I just and he was always sending it to WikiLeaks but anyway I don't know what if he was acting alone I do believe that the way in which we deal with intelligence the way in which we save intelligence the way in which we the way in which we decide who has access to it and doesn't have access to it and the way we silo that intelligence seems to be wrong and this is not the first example of that of it being wrong there seems to be something structurally fundamentally you know broken in the intelligence community that again even the fact that presidents vice presidents seem to be walking and congressmen seem to be walking home with top secret documents when they're not supposed to it seems to be it seems to be a system that's broken a system that we don't really have control over the data and we don't have it siloed so that only the people who need that data have access to it which is how you deal with top secret information now now it could be that the United States is so big in the military and the intelligence agency is so big that you can't do that badly manning was the WikiLeaks trends thank you but it seems to me that it's there are better ways to do this they have to be partially by declassifying a lot of stuff a lot of the stuff I saw assessments that I saw don't strikes me as having needed to be classified they could be public but also I have a feeling that our intelligence agency is too big too bulky too inefficient too much relying on conventional experts there's a lot of there's a lot of waste in our intelligence agency and in the defense department I mean remember we have whole segments of our military dedicated to nation building crushing the enemy does not take a lot of time in my view asage and manning of traitors and I think there's a significant difference between the two so is there somebody behind it or is somebody making this made this information available to this guy so he could leak it I just don't know and I'm not in a position to speculate and who an expert on emotions said this is a quote from this expert on emotion and the key about jealousy is you have to desire something to be jealous I don't desire penthouse in New York City so I'm not jealous of those who have them that seems off thoughts PS I do want to penthouse yeah I mean I think you do have to in order to be jealous of something you do have to desire it you have to have a general desire around it jealous of somebody from for the money that they have you can be jealous about the sports car you can be jealous but if somebody is doing something that you really don't want to do I don't think you'd be jealous of them so my first off reaction having never thought about this and of course envy is not jealousy jealousy envy is is it hatred of the good for being the good it's it's hatred of something jealousy is just I'd like that I'm jealous you have it and I don't envy is I'm going to take it I'd like to see you fall because you have that I'd like I'd like to see you lose it since I can't have the same thing as you I think it's very different but I do think jealousy requires not valuing but desire valuing requires action values require some you know act to gain or keep it requires action jealousy is often towards a target where you're not acting towards it just the desire it's a fantasy yeah you have to want it at some emotional level so I think I think it's true I mean without getting without getting without knowing too much about the full context of what he's talking about Justin Australian dollars will count it as American please if you're going to ask questions it'd be great if you used if you did it $20 or above and we have picked up $100 pretty quickly here thank you Jeff Jeff thank you Shazba thank you John thank you Maryland thank you ooh see I I promised I promised Shazba I would do I would do the two movies so after this question I'm going to cover the two movies that Shazba wanted me to cover which are an episode of MASH and a this movie Princess Mono something Shazba you can tell me how to pronounce it and I'll try to pronounce it so I'll do that after answering Justin's question in a true capitalist world if considerable provable harm was done to an individual a group of individuals by a business such as a mining company but that company has gone bust is anyone responsible no not in a limited liability business now what happens what actually happens what would happen in capitalism is the employees will father a lawsuit against the company become claimants against the assets of a company so remember the assets of a company a company going bankrupt still has assets it's a question of are those assets the value of those assets do the employees have a higher claim than the bondholders and that's a good question I'm not sure I guess it would depend largely on the harm done to them it depends on the bankruptcy laws that would be in place but I think it could be very reasonable to say that the claim that the employees have has precedence and I think this kind of makes sense because the good thing about giving the employees precedent is that it makes the bondholders it gives them an interest in making sure the managers don't abuse their employees so if real harm was done to employees and they sue and they win and the company is now bankrupt then they should have a higher claim than the bondholders to the assets of the corporation and the bondholders gets what's left and shareholders get nothing and I think that makes sense and that would make the bondholders more interested in how employees are being treated I think generally lawsuits should have prevalence over bondholders and I think that's how the American system works but I'm not sure alright so let's start with pincis mononke pincis mononke which is a Japanese animated movie it's a particular type of Japanese animation Charles Booth can tell us what type it is it's a type I've said before I don't particularly like it's a little too simplistic a little bit too childish but I am starting to get a little bit of the aesthetic of it it is very stylized and I appreciate the stylization I appreciate kind of the emotion and the they can evoke through that stylization kind of the way they can they can shape it they can make it dark and scary so the animation works again I think you can do the same thing more disney like animation which is my strong preference which is more life like animation but you know I did so generally I enjoyed the movie I thought it was an interesting movie thematically the theme is a little confusing a little confused but there is an interesting conflict in the movie I generally don't like movies about magic because they don't they can't make any sense I can forgive certain movies stories like Harry Potter because there's enough underlying story and enough underlying value to compensate for the kind of arbitrariness if you will in a world with magic because the problem I have with magic is what are the boundaries and one of the jobs of anybody writing fantasy of science fiction or doing a movie that fantasy of science fiction is to tell us what the boundaries of the magic are so that you know why can't the wizard just go like this and beat the enemy and just wipe them out and it's always over and let's go on with it but he has some powers but not others and what are the rules and it's very hard to do that and it's a problem with a lot of the rings it's a problem in Game of Thrones it's a problem in a lot of these who has magic what are the boundaries what can be done what can't be done and all these boundaries made of physical other wizards can overcome that and the same problem is in Harry Potter she tries because she's got 7 books to do it she tries to set some boundaries but they're always going to be somewhat arbitrary and confusing and contradictory and I find that frustrating but that's just me anyway this one has kind of monsters and magical creatures and stuff but fundamentally the conflict in the movie is between man's need and this is interesting because you don't get this kind of conflict very often and in a way that is not completely one-sided and unequivocal here is a conflict between man's need to change nature in order to survive and thrive represented in this movie by a woman and the people that were Lion Ho that mine the forest for iron ore to make iron civilization depends on iron the assumption is in this movie that this civilization depends on iron ore and nature which is full of magic nature which is full of various creatures nature that is beautiful and a value in and of itself and the idea is that there is this fundamental conflict between nature as represented by these magical creatures and represented by the forest and between human beings particularly these human beings not just human beings generally but these human beings that are that are mining ore and I do put real productive industrial evolution like activities so in this sense it really does present industry versus nature now I didn't take that magic is wiped out at the end because I thought she the princess goes back to the wolves at the end maybe I misunderstood the ending you know an important element of magic disappears in the forest but is destroyed in the forest so that's the conflict and it's not clear what side the movie takes because the side has two heroes magic is portrayed very benevolently very positively through this what do you call it a deer this magical deer but the two heroes one hero is the princess who is on team magic with the wolves and by magical wolves not just ordinary wolves magical wolves wolves with powers and wolves that can die the shot that killed although there are circumstances where they can die so again my confusion about magic and then the hero the male hero who is clearly on the side of men and industry and progress and they fall in love and I think at the end of the movie they're not together they agree to cooperate they agree they're in love but she goes back to nature and he goes back to civilization and they kind of live separately so the conflict is never really resolved other than industrialization wins but is it clear that that is a good outcome not so much and all kinds of devious people who want to destroy magic for all kinds of other reasons and so there's all this conflict so generally I think it's an interesting movie in that it presents this conflict which is an important conflict which is a real conflict which is a dramatic conflict of course it presents nature as having intrinsic value through this magic but does it and can we have both nature and industrialization we can obviously so it was interesting it got a little for me confusing and messed up in terms of this dia who turns into this night creature loses its head and needs to find its head beyond beyond me and seemingly unnecessary I didn't get the theme of all that so again I think in a movie that deals with actual values things that people really care about things that are important real human conflict writ large and it was entertaining I didn't hate it I enjoyed it, I didn't love it but I enjoyed it so if you like particularly if you like Japanese animation I would recommend it Princess Mononoke I assume it's a famous movie not to me because I'm not in that world but I would definitely watch it I think it was interesting enough particularly if you like that form of animation and certainly entertaining and thought provoking partially because you were just trying to figure out what was going on and what I still don't have a clear view of what the position of the movie maker is in terms of where he falls in this it's almost like he views it as a a tragic conflict he would like to have his cake and eat it too but he can't and therefore he lets humanity he lets human beings civilization wins with a little bit of regret partially he reflect the fact that he views humanity has one over nature if you view it in terms of that kind of conflict alright so that was my review of Princess Mononoke second I think Charles wondered me review and now I have a third which I haven't gotten to but the second one was an episode of MASH now I don't know how many of you know what MASH even is this is a problem of reviewing a series then many of you might not be familiar maybe the older listeners to the show MASH, MASH was a show that I watched when I was a teenager it was a show that was very very popular in the 1970s it had many many seasons and I think it was a very very good show and very well written but very very you know had a it was a comedy it was a unique comedy it was a comedy set in war MASH is a unit of doctors and nurses behind the front line so not on the front line but behind the front line during the Korean War it was a it's about a unit of doctors who treat the injured as they come in from the front line and the show had a balance this seriousness the real serious issue here people are dying people are being maimed you know this is a war this is a massive human tragedy and at the same time it's a comedy and they would make fun of the war of the army of the military of the command structure of the stupidity of the whole thing of why we had war what's this war for why are we here and I thought from my memory of it I haven't seen it in years and years and years Charles Broad brought it back to life for me in a very in a tainy way but in a very thought provoking way although it was very very cynical particularly for the time I remember this was this is a series about Korea but really this series is about Vietnam really this series is about Vietnam this is the 1970s this is just after Vietnam has ended I think this movie started just after that so it's really a criticism of war it's an anti-war series it's an anti-Vietnam war it's an anti-Korean war series so it's philosophically very mixed in that sense but it's a series made I think Alan Alda Alan Alda became a star in this movie he is an ultimate the ultimate cynic and of course the whole perspective of this is not anti-war vis-a-vis individual rights the whole perspective of it is the anti-war vis-a-vis skepticism and skepticism particularly cynicism skepticism cynicism skepticism of America in this particular episode everybody is complaining the episode starts with everybody basically complaining the food sucks the movie particularly Alan Alda and his co-star if you get the name of the actor are complaining about the movies they've seen the same movie over and over again they always get the same rotten movies and the food sucks and everything sucks and so the the commander says okay you think you can do this better you have the responsibility you have the responsibility of making this camp better more entertaining more fun you know go do it and so they try and they hatch and ultimately they come up with an idea they send the clerk who works there into the city and anyway and they have this big barbecue and it's good food and they have a lot of fun entertaining so that's one kind of theme that runs through it is this idea of people complain but they often have no clue how to make a difference and how to change things and they figure it out but it's not easy for them to figure it out it's often much it's much easier to be a complainer it's much easier to criticize than it is to do and doing is hard possible but hard during the episode how hard it is to actually get anything done how hard it is to actually satisfy all the wishes of all the other people there of all the other soldiers there and all of their wishes and desires and the things that would make them happy there's a parallel story of a of a surgeon who is particularly arrogant and unemotional does not connect to his not a surgeon that has good bedside manner but it doesn't connect to his patients really versus Alan Older who is super friendly and nice and smiling and joking and connects beautifully to all of his patients this other guy is much colder and detached but is an excellent surgeon and is boastful about how good of a surgeon is and the fact that he doesn't connect to the patients presents himself as not caring anyway he operates on this one guy and he fixes him and he kind of takes pride and he's got shrapnel all over his body and he's fixed his leg and he's kind of proud of the fact that hey if I hadn't done this amazing job in your leg you would have lost the leg and hey I fixed your hand it's going to be damaged for it's going to be damaged I really get to use it completely normally but hey I saved the hand another surgeon would have just chopped the hand off and chopped the leg off and I saved all this and then it's discovered that this guy is a concept pianist so everything that matters to him is that hand that hand is everything to him and the surgeon this really touches him and this really impacts him and he doesn't quite feel guilty like he could have done a better job but he does feel horrible about the way he treated the patients and the way he talked to the patient and he really wants to connect to this guy this guy is a real concept pianist the surgeon is a fan of classical music and he kind of he works on him to try to show him you know as bad as this is and it is bad no question it is bad you still have a life you can't give up on life there is still positivity there is still something you can do you can play with your left hand you can play with your other hand you can maybe compose you can conduct you can do other things within this musical world your life is not over because the patient is like super depressed his life is over it's finished so that's really touching and I thought very well done and of course true it isn't like there is only one value in the world for you there are multiple values and if one doesn't work out for whatever reason you've got to find other ones you've got to find other other things that you can't do and pursue those things you've always got to pursue values you've always got to find values that are important to you and when some values get out of reach or you can't attain them or you've already attained them and you're done with them then you've got to move on you've got to move on by choosing new ones to pursue and there's a sense in which the two themes are connected you're complaining and complaining and being depressed and giving up on the world is not an answer you've got to find solutions you've got to find ways to make things better and that's what that all the character does in terms of the food and entertainment for the troops and that's what the surgeon convinces this pianist at the end it's quite touching and it's quite done you know, you watch it and you can see it's a different style of acting, it's a different world the camera work is very different it's a little weird to watch, shows from the 70s generally but if somebody put this up that it was when was it from September 17, 1972 until February 1983 this show that ran for almost 11 years or 10 and a half years 10 or 11 seasons pretty amazing pretty amazing that it lasted that long you know and it had obviously some very positive views Charles Butts says one of the lines in the episode is through the baton the classroom, the pen so you've got other options you can't play with both hands anymore but you can still play with the baton you can still write music so you've got these alternatives the baton, the classroom, the pen so it's very well done and these two parallel stories are very well, nicely integrated and I enjoyed it so thank you Charles Butts really appreciate the financial support really appreciate the support you provide the show by getting me to review these hopefully you guys benefit from it and Charles Butts benefits from it as well alright let's jump in to some more super chat, wow we've made a lot of progress on the super chat while I reviewed the movie so thank you everybody for supporting the show we're just $120 short of our goal I need to take these off just $120 short of our goal which is very doable and so no more under $20 questions I know almost all the questions now are $20 or more but no more under $20 questions because we have a lot of questions here from the new deal through the 1970s the GOP and Democrats were practically the same when it came to economic policy what made the GOP move to a more free market position in the 1980s it couldn't have been just Atlas Shrugged and Milton Friedman's Free to Choose I think it was mainly Atlas Shrugged and Milton Friedman's Free to Choose but you make it sound like just it's the fact that they had been around Ein Rand and Milton Friedman and Mises and Hayek others within the free market world had been around for now decades had been talking about this preaching this, discussing this, debating this educating this, teaching this and all of that over and over again for now through the 60s and through the 70s really going back to the 1950s and add to that the complete and utter failure of status to economic policies in the 1960s and 70s so by the mid 1970s it was clear that whatever the United States was trying whatever the world really was trying in that point a mixed economy with a heavy, heavy dose of statism with a heavy, heavy dose of state intervention was failing, we had high inflation we had high unemployment we had low economic growth we had high in America we had very high crime higher than today you had infrastructure falling apart much worse than today you had New York going bankrupt you really had a situation where at the struggle was happening in the sense of cultural and economic decay and collapse much worse than it is today and people came to the conclusion we have to try something different and in the background there was one of these different things and you know I ran and you know through Alan Greenspan and others had a very positive impact I think ultimately on the Jimi Kata again and not them directly but through other people that were influenced by them I mean I ran had an indirect in Milton Friedman a direct impact on getting rid of the draft in what was in 1973 or whenever the draft was eliminated it was Martin Anderson who had studied with I ran it was part of the collective that the group that used to meet regularly with I ran was part of the commission that Nixon appointed to look at the draft and Milton Friedman was very anti-draft and those people so it's through people who were influenced by that point even Jimi Kata was deregulating like crazy Democrats in the House and the Senate were voting to dramatically deregulate the US economy because there was so much in there and the failure of status policies was so obvious the difference today is you don't have that intellectual firepower arguing for freedom for liberty and even though you had this amazing intellectual firepower back then you still didn't last today we don't have that intellectual firepower I mean look at the right Matt Walsh Matt Walsh is like literally inferior to anybody any, you know, I don't know Oving Cristolo even people in the National Review I mean this guy is a clown as compared to their intellectual firepower but this is what the right has to offer today as compared so even the bad right back then was better than anything the right has to offer today so it's hard to see something like that happening again we just don't have the iron rands the mental feed rands or anybody close to them we have more of them but of I think lower quality alright ooh clock stepped in with another hundred bucks thank you clock we made our goal, thank you guys we're at 650, beautiful clock says why are mentally ill people always malevolent and violent? the media refers to many mentally ill perpetrators of violence as though they have no idea what they're doing why aren't those with mental illness ever just passive and leave people alone well I think many of them do I mean a lot of people with mental illness are depressed, a lot of them commit suicide so I think different mental illnesses manifest themselves differently some manifest themselves in depression and isolation and potential suicide and you know and other mental illnesses manifest themselves in anger and hatred and resentment and the ultimate denialism the will and motivation to destroy so I think you have to segregate and categorize different mental illnesses manifest themselves very differently and it's not true that they're always violent now the malevolence comes from the fact that whatever it is that's causing the mental illness is causing them to have a distorted view of the world a distorted view of reality and that creates malevolence when you can't understand the world you don't know why it's happening you don't know what is happening you don't understand it that is going to create a malevolence a consequence of understanding the world just and wrong at least that understanding breeds malevolence but if you don't understand and it's confusing it's distraught and it's you can't handle it you can't cope with it which is what the mental illness refers to that is necessarily going to lead to a malevolent view and that again can manifest in internalizing it and depression and ultimately suicide manifest itself in violence externally we've got a lot of questions and we've gone over the target so thank you guys I am still here I'll be here until we answer all these questions Frank says 50 bucks no more no more under $20 questions please there's just too many questions right now I really appreciate the support of course but there's just too many $20 and above questions and too many other questions that I just I don't want to be here all night can't be all here all night so if you want to ask for $20 that's fine but for under $20 save it for next show monogamy is usually defended on religious grounds duty to wife and family but could monogamy be sufficiently defended as an individualistic individualist success is divorce always proof of a failure of individuality well no is divorce always proof of failure of individuality I don't so monogamy can be defended based on I think just resources and human capacity just the intensity of love and the intensity of a romantic relationship being so significant intensity being so intense that there's just no room for more than one other partner so there's nothing metaphysic about there's nothing about monogamy immoral about being non-monogamous I don't know what that would be but non-monogamous as long as there's no cheating and dishonesty is involved but there's nothing inherently immoral unless it's hurtful to yourself that is it's not a sustainable relationship and I feel that for most people I don't want to say this for everybody I'm not an advocate for monogamy for everybody I think for most people monogamy is just is another option because the amount of energy that this one other individual takes not negative energy but the amount of time, effort, energy focus that this one other individual takes is such that there's not left for others it's not until you can't fall in love with other people it's that you can't devote the kind of energy that love acquires to more than one person at a time at a time and not to say that some people can't make it work I'm not going to argue that I don't know enough and one of the reasons I say that is because we live in a culture so dominated by Christianity by religion it's hard to tell what family what relationships will look like once we've left religion in the dust in the dustbin of history and we're free of all the hangovers of religion what do we like as human beings when we're truly rational given up on all that garbage what do we really like and I don't know I think I have an idea but we don't really know what's fully available potentially to human beings is the voice always proof of a failure of individuality no the voice is just proof of a failure a failure of a relationship the inability to sustain a relationship over time it just didn't work because I don't think monogamy is a feature of individuality and I don't think so I wouldn't have a phrase monogamy is sufficiently defended as an individualist success it's no I don't know why what you mean by individualist here so I don't think it's a sign of success and I don't think the voices sign a failure people who are not individualists fall in love and get married all the time people who are individualists get divorced I think it's a failure of a relationship I think monogamy is again it can be justified psychologically based on the amount of focus and energy that love requires I don't know if I answered your question Frank but I hope I did okay Andrew which is your favorite between the ending of The Found Head and Ashwagd the depiction of the city as Dominique raises up to work at the end at the top of the building is awesome I also find out that Ashwagd finds us seemingly powerful I find it hard to choose between the two I do think that The Found Head is more powerful it's more visual it's the ultimate success the ending of Ashwagd is more anticipatory of a future success they survived but now they're going to go back to the world at some point as the city lights go out it's dark there's a certain darkness to it the city lights go out there's a lot that's going to happen as a consequence of the city that's going out so I find just the ending of The Found Head all positive inspiring motivating all of that I would have to vote for The Found Head Liam in regards to a question you answered last show in Germany inmates do not get extra charges added to the sentence for attempting to escape because the German Human Rights Commission view human nature as naturally freedom seeking yeah right okay the Germans are wrong one more reason the Germans are wrong Germans are wrong about a lot of things here's another one human nature is not freedom seeking if it was the world would be free human nature is what it is but it doesn't seek freedom the fact is that in all of the 100,000 years or the millions of years of homo sapiens being on planet earth they've been very very very how can it be human nature when it's so rare so rare it's a I think requirement for human beings to be free but again and then one has to differentiate between people who deserve freedom and people who do not criminals do not deserve freedom James Taylor we don't see much nihilism in business today I have a lot of trust in American business to be honest and efficacious with customers where I see nihilism rearing and suddenly head everywhere is an interpersonal relationships yeah I think that's right business business is the best thing about America this is why the right turn against business is really horrific because now business has no protectors but the best thing about America is business business trains people to be relatively rational to be adhered to reality a business is about facts business is about value creation it's about wealth creation value creation, achievement success you don't get promoted unless you achieve something you don't get a raise until you unless you have value so business is the best thing about America even though it's not 100% free even though we don't have a free market business is the one area in American life that orient people towards reality orient people towards facts if all our businessmen were corrupt boot lickers like Arun Boyle we wouldn't be a growing economy we wouldn't be as technologically advanced as we have Arun Boyle doesn't create anything he doesn't build anything he doesn't innovate anyway and yet the economy is full of innovators we have entrepreneurs that innovate we can focus on all the the political correctness and the DEI and all this garbage but the reality is that American business is stunning in its productive efficaciousness it's stunning in its ability to produce products and bring them to market it's stunning in its ability to innovate and produce new products Arun Boyle's running American business and when they are they fail very quickly look at what happened to to general electric over the last 20 years you can see that was run by Arun Boyle after being run by a great businessman and it's declined and crashing but business is the best part of America there's nothing better today in America there's no part of America that is better than the business world even the businesses that you might think are really really bad would not exist and would not thrive and would not be successful unless there was something some virtue there something of value there that was part of why I liked about which TV series they did actually spell out rules for the witchcraft I don't remember the rules it was a cute series but I don't remember the standards but I don't remember the sense that they would you have to to some extent Hopper Campbell says where is the epistemology of absolutes and logical integrated identifications of reality into principles is far more challenging to convince people of than the fact that one should live for himself and be selfish in the details I think that's absolutely right but if you can convince them of one you should be able to convince them of the other and there's always the question of how how much epistemology do they have to really understand and know versus a broad understanding of thinking and rationality and reason the basis for being selfish because you can't be selfish unless you have an understanding of reason some understanding and some understanding of rationality because that's what being selfish is it's to be rational so if you don't have an understanding of what being rational is you're not really convincing them to be selfish convince them to be something but not necessarily selfish so they go they can't be completely separate some understanding depends on the level and the extent and the depth Adam asks maybe this message will have a butterfly effect that will cause Matt Walsh to stop making stupid videos one can wish one can hope maybe Matt will debate me on some issue I don't know not your average algorithm the fact that all forms of violence from hitting your kids to narcissistic bullying is being identified and clamped down on is clearly an indication that societies are getting more rational over time in that dimension yeah I think that's right and that's a point that Steven Pinker makes in his book the better angels of ourselves which I think is an excellent book about violence and yes the fact that we live in far less violent societies now that we have historically is a sign of moving towards civilization Michael is there a way to explain values to a teenager do teenagers need different methods to explain important ideas I'm sure they do and I can't claim that I know in what ways there would be different methods again I think any kind of teacher you have to figure out what those are but you have to concretize you have to give examples you have to bring it down to reality and you have to bring it down to their realities you have to have concreets and examples that come from their lives but look first of all values are that which one acts to gain or keep lots of things the teenage values now you might not like the values of a teenager you might think the values are superficial but they are the teenagers values and you've got to recognize what his values or who values are in teaching them that they are such things as values and then the question is are these the right values and for that you have to teach the teenager that there is a standard their life over the long run looking into the future now the biggest challenge with teenagers is the inability of teenagers to think long term and part of that is part of that is like an experience part of that is biological their final cortex is not fully developed final cortex is responsible for long term thinking so you have to work with them you have to work slowly for example you have to show them you have to bring it into their world and show them that they already value things they always have since they were babies they value things baby values things and then you have to teach them how to judge whether a value is good for them or bad for them whether a value promotes their life or doesn't over the long run and the only way to do that the only way to evaluate what promotes life or doesn't is by the use of reason that's what you have to do to the teenager not easy follow up question by Justin what if the bankrupt mining company folded 20 years ago and individuals in the local community proved the pollution from the mining operation cause considerable physical harm is anyone reliable no nobody is it sucks but nobody is there's just nobody responsible for it and there's also a good question about did 20 years ago did anybody know that what they were doing was causing this harm this is the case the famous case of asbestos when asbestos was being produced 40-50 years ago they didn't know asbestos was bad for you so how can those companies be held liable for doing something they didn't know was bad you can only be liable for something you did negligence negligence means you either knew or should have known that something was bad and if you didn't know it so there are a lot of things that happen to you that suck there's a lot of things that happen to you that cause you damage that nobody is liable for even if they to some extent caused it they're not liable for it because they're not liable for damage they caused you if they didn't know they were causing you damage if you had the same access the same information they did now if they were hiding that information from you they're definitely liable interesting questions Justin interesting questions around liability and so on Jacob so sad and tragic terrorism in Israel so many Jews worldwide hesitate to move to Israel because of terrorism if you were prime minister what would you do to end Palestinian terrorism once and for all oh god you ask me these questions it only gets me into trouble I mean look we all know how to end terrorism you have to reoccupy the west bank and you have to dismantle all of the military gang violence organizations among the Palestinians you have to demilitarize the whole place there's no legitimate you just have to demilitarize the whole place Israel has to take over the educational institutions in the west bank there has to be a program of re-civilizing the Palestinians which means changing the curriculum it means again taking the guns away it means taking weapons away from them and it basically means putting them under Israeli law not letting them vote annexing the whole area not letting them vote for a generation or two until they embrace the principles of a free society a semi-free society as the case is in Israel encouraging those that refuse to embrace it to leave but basically requiring a sudden attitude in order to get the right to vote or anything else place them under Israeli law and be ruthless with those who incite for violence and those who advocate for violence those who promote violence those who have political parties dedicated to violence and be ruthless with Hamas and be ruthless with Hezbollah so that everybody knows your attitude towards violence so you have to be about a thousand times tougher than the Israelis are today but in a much more rational systematic way the problem with this right wing government in Israel right now is that it wants to be tougher but it can't because it can't be principled and it can't be consistent and it can't be rational because these are religious thugs Jewish religious thugs instead of Palestinian religious thugs so unfortunately there's nothing that can't be done today in Israel the people are just not behind it but you got to get tough you got to get tough and tough and fair which means tough and respecting of rights at the same time James why do you think people make slavery seem like it is something that is easy to get over I find both sides of the aisle use slavery as a rally tactic yes I mean I think it's kind of I don't know I don't know how they get away with doing it I don't know why they think they can do it I mean slavery is an evil horrible you know just disgusting institution that yes existed for most of human history doesn't make it any less vile any less vile you should watch what's the series roots it's a series I really liked about how slaves were treated and what a man it's just a there's no real way to have a positive or a semi positive moderate view towards slavery it's a vile evil institution that would have been better if human beings had never invented even if that meant that me as a particular individual wouldn't be here today although the whole thing that Matt Walsh was trying to do was stupid James says what do you think motivated French government move to establish a better relation with China over US will USA troops be looked down at in France well I mean this is not new France since World War II has been trying to establish itself as a power to be reckoned with for a long time it refused to join NATO it had its own nuclear arsenal independent of NATO it refused to be under kind of US control because that's what NATO meant the French were the ones who sent in the gold to kind of destroy the Bretton Wood system and call America on its debts which I think they were justified in doing but they've always since the goal they've tried to have an independent foreign policy and an independent path and they resent the fact always have resented the fact that they were some Soviets or the Americans or powerful that they rely on America for their self-defense I think they resent that fact France spends more money on national defense than other European countries as partially as a consequence of that resentment so France wants to be independent as part of its independence it wants to have its own foreign policy it doesn't want to be dragged along with American foreign policy as part of choosing that own foreign policy is to have a different attitude towards China in what way are they going to be different towards China and the US he didn't say but it was just this false sense of I was going to talk about this on a show false sense of independence that the French have had or would truly be independent and Marcon was talking a lot about Europe being powerful independent of the United States and having should have a foreign policy that's separate from the United States I agree I completely agree as I've said often the United States should not be part of NATO NATO should be a European alliance to protect Europe from thugs like the Russians and the United States should be its ally should be its friend we should cooperate because we're all basically free countries but Europeans are rich enough to defend themselves and the French I hope the French and Bolden the Germans to take them up on it and become independent of the United States and have their own defense forces and get rid of the US out of NATO and have their own foreign policy that's fine ideally there would be free trade between the United States and Europe but that's it France doesn't need to follow the US it should be US's ally because we have certain shared values but what we don't need is protecting France and if the French are okay with us not protecting them cool that's good Colt Savage folks find you someone who loves folks find you someone who loves you as much as Tucker loves Russia and dictatorship that treat human beings like garbage I have no idea what you're talking about Colt someone who loves you as much as Tucker loves Russia and dictatorship that treat human beings like garbage yeah I'm not sure I think I get the sentiment but I'm not exactly sure Andrew Trigger asks how are Tucker and Tulsi gabbard allies well they both hate America they both resent America they both like thugs they both want America to be in kind of a decline they both resent American exceptionalism and anything that that implies and who also asks do you view Moody's downgrade of Israel as warranted or is there a political motivation I don't know it's warranted in that yeah I mean Israeli government is dysfunctional right now and have this massive unforced error of the judicial review I don't know if that warrants a downgrade I haven't looked enough into the Israeli economy but particularly that they've withdrawn the judicial review but this government is problematic and it could be that this government is going to form into another Intifada which it doesn't know how to deal with and it could mean that all of this is going to create some real headwinds for the Israeli economy and in that case then yeah Moody's downgrade makes sense James asks what type of solution can be done for black Americans to get better opportunities to apply to top schools top jobs in other areas of life well I mean the main problem for black Americans is education and the welfare state so what needs to happen is you know I think that school choice is the solution for blacks when it comes to education what we really need is a education saving account program for all Americans I think blacks will disproportionately benefit from it because the schools in their neighborhoods are disproportionately the worst if they're better education they're better opportunities they're more opportunities and the second is we need to find a way to break and destroy the culture of entitlement the culture the culture that says that you're entitled to a living no matter what that you're entitled to welfare then you're entitled to minimum wage then you're entitled to all these things what we need is to get rid slowly of the welfare state and at the same time improve education of that education so those are the primary things that will make it possible for blacks to have to maximize their opportunities I mean this is the argument we make in equal is unfair capitalism doesn't give you equal opportunities it maximizes your opportunities and that's what you want you want to maximize their opportunities and that will raise their opportunity level as well but that requires more than anything else privatizing finding ways to privatize education and then one other issue and that is getting rid of violence in the communities and I think a big step towards that would be legalizing drugs so legalizing drugs privatizing education and a slow but systemic and morally grounded elimination of the welfare state anonymous user says the state of conservatives frightens me me too could but but here are 5 shmengas for you I thought there were dollars I don't know what shmengas are Ryan who says that well should pay you reparations for making you hear that stupidity I should pay all of us you guys you guys had a hero too Gail says what do you think of the government health care apps online which invite you to share all your health records to the world I think it's awful you know I reject all government apps any government apps but certainly health care apps I like health care apps just not the government ones I think I use a health care app to communicate with my doctors to have access to all my medical records all of that I think it's a good thing and I wish I really really really wish there was a lot more of that it was better integrated and you could access more and you'd have the whole medical history and you could pull records from a hospital whatever it's gone to unfortunately that would require a free market to get that level of efficiency what's the best course offered at ARU this quarter I don't know I'm not taking them I mean I was interested in the one on Kant's philosophy but I don't think that was open to everybody I think that was like an advanced course only open to some people but I don't know what the best course I Ayn Rand's ideas through her fiction is getting a lot of reviews and given that Ankar Gathe is teaching it that's the one I would take Ayn Rand's ideas through her fiction is I'm sure an amazing course Shahzad what if Israeli Americans and Palestinian Americans got together and made several videos of them having barbecues bowling and playing poker together then sent these videos to Middle East as an example I mean that would change the world like that because barbecue that's what it's all about um yeah I mean history is determined by ideas not barbecues it's I know that these videos are being made that these groups are getting together but the reality is that you're not going to overcome the religious fanaticism or the nationalist fanaticism the hatred of Jews and the hatred of Israel by just being nice to a subgroup within the group so um this this requires fundamental ideological change within the Palestinian people Ryan says great show did you say pilgrimages in Eastern Europe can you explain what Christians did that you briefly mentioned this sounded like pro-programs you know I didn't say pilgrimages I said pilgrims programs where Christians killed Jews I think that's what you're referring to I don't know I'm not sure right but uh programs where um Christians Russians Ukrainians Poles Germans but primarily Eastern Europeans basically killed Jews are Belarusians certainly programs killed Jews in large numbers in the in the late 19th century early 20th century drove a lot of those Jews to emigrate out Europe uh many of them went to Palestine a lot of them came to America many more came to America than went to Palestine um some of them state many of them state million state they were killed by the Nazis so uh one way or the other they were slaughtered programs were typically organized by the local aristocrats or the local governments or the national governments to divert attention from bad news or or just to give people something to do rather than attack the elites go kill some Jews Frank says my favorite song is Wave by David Silvian worth a listen for its uniqueness I don't think I've ever heard that one I'll take a look all right let's see I think we've got two or three last questions and we'll call it a night you know long night two hours already um thank you Frank Daniel says I like Shapiro I feel like Shapiro would know better that Walsh video has to be embarrassing I think that's right Shapiro strikes me as smarter if nothing else significantly smarter uh James says is racism a mental illness no if you start making irrational ideas a mental illness then almost everybody is mentally ill no racism is just bad ideas evil ideas really bad ideas all right friend Harper says cheers to three months in YouTube membership the members only shows are worth it I hope more people consider joining I'm curious how many members are there in total I think that just under 200 something like that we should have 20,000 but just under 200 so if you want to become a member please do so you can do so by joining in YouTube we have members only shows that's the I think the big advantage of becoming a member versus supporting the show in other ways anywhere you want to support the show on Patreon and subscribe still on your onbrookshow.com slash support all welcome thank you guys I hope you had you enjoyed the show we made our goal again today three days in a row three shows in a row that's fantastic thank you guys and um mook is coming I think merchandise is coming somebody has to ask Christian um action Jackson where the mook is we've got t-shirts we're getting t-shirts ready so hopefully those will be ready soon and we'll be able to do your onbrookshow t-shirts are coming soon all right everybody tomorrow morning news roundups we're starting news roundups every day this week and then we'll take a break from them from month but we'll do news roundups this week so we'll start tomorrow morning probably I don't know 12 o'clock east coast time something like that see you all then bye everybody have a great night and have a great week in front of you thanks for all the super chatters really really really