Michael Malice and Angela McArdle analyze the "Rage Against the War Machine" rally on February 17th, debating Dinesh D'Souza's "Police State" and Javier Milei's libertarian rise. They critique Regnery and Hillsdale College for dropping Michael Rechtenwald over Gaza criticism, contrasting this with Gary Johnson's 2016 media manipulation. The discussion exposes U.S. unconditional aid to Israel, the Likud Party's blockade of a two-state solution, and shifting narratives regarding Ukraine and NATO expansion, ultimately arguing that ideological purity hinders practical anti-war outcomes. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Taking Over the Libertarian Party00:14:36
Fill her up!
You are listening to the gas human.
We need to roll back the state.
We spy on all of our own citizens.
Our prisons are flooded with nonviolent drug offenders.
If you want to know who America's next enemy is, look at who we're funding right now.
Every single one of these problems are a result of government being way too big.
You're listening to part of the problem on the gas digital network.
Here's your host, James Smith.
All right, what's up?
What's up, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem.
We are at the Creek and the Cave in Austin, Texas, and I'm joined by two wonderful people who I love very much.
Angela McArdle, of course, the chair of the LNC, and Michael Malice, the troll of the Earth, and probably, which I, as I've said before, this kind of blows my mind when I say this out loud, but I think probably the most anarch, the most prominent anarchist thinker today.
Ross LeBrand.
Is he an anarchist?
Oh, he's a Noam Chomsky.
Noam Chomsky doesn't count because he totally humiliated himself over COVID.
Well, I humiliate myself every five seconds.
So that's not the metric.
You're the most prominent anarchist who isn't Medicare for all.
Yes, there you go.
Yeah.
There you go.
But anyway, so it's good to see both of you guys.
Good to be here in Austin, Texas, my home away from home.
So Angela, you got a big, a big thing to talk about.
So let's do that first.
I do.
We got the whole gang together last year for this big anti-war rally called Rage Against the War Machine in DC at the Lincoln Memorial, and it was a big success.
We had about 3,000 people there.
And we think with everything that's going on right now with the Israel-Palestine conflict and the Ukraine war, we need to do another one.
And Taiwan, Demetrian Wardrobe.
That's coming.
That's absolutely coming.
So we're doing it again, February 17th.
This reiteration of Rage Against the War Machine is going to be focused on the deep state and really explaining what the military-industrial complex is about, how it's all connected and how it props up the war machine.
Yeah, that's awesome.
And I'm really excited about this.
It's like, this is, to me, in essence, what I love about the whole project of kind of taking over the Libertarian Party is that if there is to be a third party that's going to call itself libertarian, these are the type of things we should be focusing on and not this kind of like, well, we're going to run a couple of red, a couple of red governors from blue states who are kind of like, let's work on compromise.
Like if we're to exist, the point of our existence is to point out how corrupt the system is and not that we'd like it to be like what it was, you know, what it used to be 10 years ago.
And it's also very good opportunity because a lot of conservatives think, okay, the deep state are just the guys going after Trump and they haven't put two and two together, that it's so much broader and that it's been going back for a very, very long time.
I want to give a plug to one that I think a lot of people in the audience might be a little skeptical of.
I saw Dinesh D'Souza's new movie.
It's called Police State.
And I thought it was going to be Republicans good, Democrats bad.
It was not.
He really ties a lot of pieces together.
And I think it's really worth watching.
And you could stream it now.
I was shocked how much I liked it.
I was not, I haven't seen it yet.
So I was on his show recently, like a month or two ago.
And yeah, it's very interesting, especially from my perspective as somebody who kind of came into politics as a Ron Paul supporter and all of conservatism Inc. at the time was championing the war on terrorism.
It's interesting to see a guy like that because he, I basically was talking about on his show, I was talking about how, you know, Ron Paul was right about all of this stuff that the conservatives in the movie.
Well, he goes, he literally said to me, he goes, that's the whole premise of my movie, basically, is that we supported all of this stuff and we were totally wrong about it.
And Dan Bongino is like co-producer or co-host, whatever.
He's got a big role.
And he's a big, like conservative, straight up conservative.
And for a former cop, NYPD.
So for someone like him to be like, this is complete crazy, out of control, not pulling punches, I was very, very gratified to see.
So we are going to be inviting conservatives and Democrats to our rally to participate with the caveat that they support the messaging of the rally, which is to abolish these deep state agencies like the CIA and FBI.
And if there are conservatives who are elected right now, you know, I'm not going to name any names, but I've actually had a couple of phone calls with some of them who are interested in pushing legislation and are going to be really open about, hey, I want to abolish the FBI.
Let's try to get a bill going.
We're going to let them speak.
And you know what the thing is?
And this is complete.
It's funny when you say something that's both completely tinfoil hat and something that no one would argue with.
If I were an elected official, I would think twice about going after the FBI or CIA because I know it not only would be a target.
I don't mean like I'd be killed, but like I'm going to get audited or my wife or my kids.
Like it's not even a question.
Like, so it sounds like paranoia, but like there's really no dispute.
I just was on, I was taking the my Uber here and I was Googling Derek Chauvin and I didn't realize that not only did I get him for murder charges, they audited him and he got 13 months for like tax evasion.
Jesus.
And I didn't know that.
Right.
It's just like at the same time, it's like, oh, by the way, let's look into your taxes.
But the time is now.
Like, you know, it's just fascinating how that works.
Yeah, no, it really is.
And it's very interesting.
You know, I was thinking about this a bit with, so because we should talk about this too, that Javier Millay just was elected, which is really, it's hard to overstate how wild this is.
And I think I've seen a lot of libertarians have different takes on this where I think they're kind of missing the.
Can I say what's your favorite take on this one?
Well, okay, so there's the one that says that he is, which I understand where some people are saying this, that he's basically a neocon plant because of his foreign policy take.
Sure.
Then there are the people who are more like think essentially it's been done already.
Like there's the victory.
See, now it's going to be a libertarian society.
You're falling into like the whole, you know, like rule number one is don't fall into that trap.
No, this is just the beginning of the, you know, the thing.
Now, the reason I brought it up or what you said that reminded me of it is that, look, I'm not saying this is the case.
And I understand where there's some people who have been critical about some of the things he said about China and Israel and some of the things about, you know, pegging their currency to the dollar and these things.
But I would just say keep in mind, I'm not saying this is the case, but keep in mind also, first of all, your foreign policy to be to be the president in Argentina is not the same thing as what your foreign policy is if you are the president of the United States of America.
You're not running to run the world empire.
You're running to be in charge of small.
And the point I was making to you is that it's like, if I were elected president in Argentina and I've been running on a destroy the state, you know, like these, the socialists are scum, fire every one of these public sector employees.
I would probably not be like, and also the U.S. government is a criminal organization.
And I, you know, like, I'm against all of their wars and all of this, because you really would have to be concerned in that situation about being overthrown.
Like that's exactly what you're doing.
That's what the U.S. government does.
And assassinated.
Yes.
Like, this is a very real concern.
Like, I'm not just going to be there and you go, hey, you know, these regime change experts, screw them.
Like, just saying.
I'm not saying that is the case.
I don't know if he's the real deal or he's not.
I don't think we should ever be in the business of reading other people's minds.
It's also interesting to me, like, as someone who so admires Alexander Hamilton, because the point I make when I talk to some of these kind of really simple-minded types, anarchism was on the table.
The choices between like Hamilton or Jefferson and like you, I quote, I wish people understood more when Thomas Sowell says there's no solutions, there's only trade-offs.
The choice for Javier, from my understanding, isn't between like liberty and the U.S. Empire.
It's between the U.S. Empire and like Chavez and Venezuela.
Yeah, absolutely.
Do you know what I mean?
So like given those two choices, yeah, I'm not a fan of U.S. imperialism.
I'm not as skeptical of it as you guys, perhaps, but compared to Venezuela, I mean, are you kidding me?
Like, what are you or Cuba?
Oh, I speak to the Venezuelan libertarians.
What's left of them on a semi-regular basis, the ones that haven't been locked away in prison.
They're very, very thin.
Yeah.
They're in rough shape.
Well, look, I mean, probably not that bad, but even what's been going on in Argentina has just been terrific.
I mean, they've been, you know, there's, there's something that, like 125% inflation, 140%.
It's just, it's like, it's hard.
And it's easier.
I'm sorry.
It's easier to peg their, what, their currency to the dollar than to Bitcoin.
Yes.
This is this kind of people, like if Ron Paul, listen, if Ron Paul had been elected president, something which I think all three of us would just, you know, give our like foot for.
Yeah.
It's not going to be, he would be still very hampered in Pakistan.
Yeah.
It's right.
It's not going to be golf sculpts tomorrow.
He'd be very hampered what he could do.
He would have huge swaths of both political parties in Congress undermining him, especially behind his back into the press.
I think people's ideas of, if you are skeptical of government, you should also be skeptical of what politicians are capable of pulling off, even if they were literal angels.
Well, and it's weird because I just see in a lot of these takes, it's almost like, oh, look, I don't think you've really understood or internalized the most foundational libertarian anarchist principle, which is that this thing isn't real.
That's the whole idea.
This isn't a real thing.
There isn't any such thing as government.
It's just an idea in your mind.
All that's real is men with guns and who's got more of them and who can impose their will.
Like that's the only thing that actually objectively exists.
And so it doesn't matter if to the same extent, like you could go before the Supreme Court and just be like, well, look, here's the Second Amendment right here.
And here's what it says.
And then they can go, no, we have a different interpretation.
And that's real now.
And we're going to pretend words just mean different things.
Yeah, that's right.
And we're also going to pretend we don't know what they meant when they wrote those words as if there's like volumes of libraries that are discussing it.
Right.
And so here, so here's the real takeaway.
And this is, I'm getting to a really big white pill here because like I guess it sounds kind of black pillish to just be like, yeah, well, okay, who knows if he's even going to be able to implement any of his agenda?
And then who knows if he really has that agenda or he's just fooling everybody.
But regardless of that, the crazy thing for all of us to take away from it is that he ran and won on this message.
And that he, you know what I mean?
So the fact is that what he was doing, and there's something that I think all people.
But also it got endorsed by a third candidate.
Yes.
That's also key.
Yes.
And so there's the what we should learn from this situation is like, well, look, here's the way you can actually spread this message effectively.
And the fact is that a, you know, people call him like a Trumpian figure, but I don't really think that has anything to do with the policies that he's running on.
He's Donald Trump is never running.
It's just that he's a loudmouth.
Yes.
He's a loudmouth and he's brash and he wrapped up his libertarian views in a populist message that just appealed to regular people, being like, you are getting screwed over by these people and I'm going to attack them.
That's really what is similar to Donald Trump's message and that that's the only way to make this thing kind of sellable.
It would behoove us to learn this lesson.
Yeah.
That it's not just about, well, you know, I got to please my political enemies so that they'll vote for me.
No.
No, I think it's also that there's two things.
First of all, I'm shocked that he's like 53.
Did you guys know this?
I thought he was like 30, given the way he talks and his hair.
I'm like, okay, this guy just left college.
I think there is this something that really is just excruciating to me.
There's this, this happens with any kind of marginalized movement where people try to compete with one another in terms of ideological purity because if they don't have wins, like the only thing they can compete on is I'm more of a communist than you.
I'm more libertarian than you.
I'm more of a white nationalist than you, whatever it is.
And it becomes these bizarre litmus tests.
And I'll give an example that we could all agree on in 1980 when Rand said, I can't support Reagan because he's pro-life.
And no one who's pro-life can be a supporter of human rights.
I'm not voting for him.
And it's just like, you supported Nixon, right?
Like twice.
Right.
And Ron Paul is pro-life.
You're telling me Ron Paul is not an advocate of individual rights.
And Reagan was a very flawed figure.
But in terms of increasing liberty on net for a lot of people around the world, that's going to be a really hard argument to make with me, especially compared to Nixon.
Right.
Well, yeah.
Okay.
Certainly.
Yeah.
I mean, whatever we could get into from Anne Rand's perspective, right?
You know, she's not like a libertarian, quote unquote.
No, but I mean, she was, I mean, she's very much a libertarian, not capital L, but in the sense of like someone who is a minarchist for individual rights.
That's all that matters.
You know, and for her to just completely be like, no, he's completely impossible for him.
Well, she rejected the term libertarian because it was synonymous with anarchists to her.
So she was rejecting Rothbard and the us, the hippies of the right.
Hippies of the right.
Javiers.
But by the way, I just always, always, I think I've told you this before, but I always just loved that.
I was always, she goes, you guys are just hippies of the right.
And I was like, exactly.
That's it.
I couldn't think of a better way to describe what I am.
A right-wing hippie.
How are you a hippie?
Well, because all I want is peace and cooperation and non-aggression.
Yeah, but you're a dad and you don't like sit around like with a bong.
I just have to say I really can't stand hippies, but I shouldn't because, you know, this big rally is a lot of cooperation.
I don't know if it's hippies.
I mean, there is something hippie-ish in the perspective of like being like non-aggression is the key to our solutions.
Hippies of the Right00:04:12
And that's peace.
And by the way, I like that you're dressed like a moderate Nick Gillespie right now.
Burn.
This gives you Nick Gillespie vibes.
Moderate Nick Gillespie is like toned down leather.
It's not black.
It's brown.
Nick Gillespie, who I like, by the way, full disclosure.
But he just, he just dresses like the most badass guy and has the most moderate takes on everything, but whatever.
I don't know.
I guess he's radical compared to some people.
I like Nick Carter.
Compared to Bill Crystal, he is very radical.
That is true.
That's true.
That is true.
I don't know.
Bill Crystal is kind of radical in his own way of just like kill everyone.
That's pretty radical.
He is.
Well, because it's not in a good way.
He is the mad max libertarian.
Yeah, let's just kill everybody.
All right.
I guess that's one plan.
I put it this way to Rogan on one of my appearances on his show a few years ago, where I was just kind of like, I was like, let's just imagine, like the hypothetical is imagine we live in whatever society you want.
Like we're in the way the government is, the society is is largely more or less what whatever it is that you picture.
You know, so like the healthcare policy, the foreign policy is all like kind of what you want.
So now you're You're by definition a centrist, like a completely moderate supports the status quo.
And then I was like, okay, there were three people who three radicals come up to you.
And one of them is like the most left-wing radical person you could think of.
So they're saying, whatever, we need a green new deal and we need whatever the left.
And then there's the right-wing radical who's like, you know, close the borders and deport them all or whatever they say.
And then a third person comes up to you and goes, okay, hey, here's what I think we should do.
I think we should start seven wars in the Middle East and just start slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
I think we should spend ourselves $30 plus trillion dollars into jet, throw that to the next generation.
They'll figure it out.
You know what I mean?
Like I think just describing everything we do today.
And you're like, would you really, would you ever look at these three and be like, the left winger and the right wing are radical.
But this guy, this seems totally reasonable over here.
I think it'd be pretty obvious.
You'd be like, you are the most radical of everybody.
So the whole idea of extremism or radicalism, it's all just a perception based on perspective.
Like, what is really radical and what is.
I had this tweet where I said that, this is like when Trump was elected or inaugurated, that watch of the three branches, the Supreme Court is going to be the most radical in the next term, which ended up being clearly true.
And all these boomer cons were like, why do you mean radical?
They're constitutionalists.
I'm like, do you not?
What did the people hear terms?
And it's at the point now where I know what the Kathy Newman response is on Twitter.
And it's just kind of the boomer version of, well, actually.
Yeah.
It's like nail.
Right.
It's like nails on a chalkboard.
And they think, okay, radical is a negative term.
The Supreme Court's doing good things.
Therefore, the Supreme Court's not radical.
And they just run this filter for literally every word.
And the word has a negative connotation.
And what you're Hitler's a leftist because leftists are bad and right-wingers are good.
Like that's the extent of their thinking.
And it just drives me absolutely batshit because there's no possibility of communication because you're arguing with their emotional response.
Well, and you, because they're destroying language to the point where like you can't have a conversation anymore.
So I remember getting in an argument with somebody about this thing that the Nazis were leftists because they were national socialists.
And you're like, okay, the entire theory, the entire philosophy of Nazism was built on strict racial hierarchies.
Explain to me how that is in any way compatible.
Or egalitarianism.
You know what I mean?
Like with mentioned the trans anti-trans, anti-gay, all the other stuff.
And then they go, anti-immigrants.
They will, they were like, well, I define left wing as like, I forget the exact socialism or big stuff.
Well, it was like, well, no, it was, no, it was more of like a Curtis Yarvin type thing than that, where they were like, oh, it's like the decaying of society and the right wing is like the restoring of society.
And that was what they argue for.
I was like, yeah, but if you like, but even within that, but he'd be arguing that they actually ended up decaying the society.
But I go, but even if you're arguing that, then that's just stupid.
If you're just saying like everything bad is the left.
And then I go, well, how can you blame it on the left?
They go, well, I define left as everything bad.
Nazism and Egalitarianism Clash00:02:49
You're like, okay, well, then, yeah.
Well, then, I guess by that definition, but now you're just changing.
So that's completely circular.
So we have like all of our political arguments based on Curtis Yarvin apocryphal texts.
I feel like, no.
Yeah, like, even though, man, I can make the case.
That would be, listen, let's go back to this hypothesis with three people.
If we're starting from there, that is the moderate approach.
Well, yeah, I guess.
I guess everything is relative.
So yeah, it's compared to the angel.
What was it?
Is it Gray Mirror?
What's his, what's the name of his subject?
That's the new one, I think, right?
What's the old one?
Unqualified reservations.
Unqualified reservations.
I've turned to first unqualified reservations.
I have not read much of the Gray Mirror stuff.
I read some of his unqualified reservation stuff.
I do think he's like, he's fun to read.
And when I say fun, that could give the wrong impression because he's not like... Light.
Yeah, it's not light.
It's not easy reading, but it's very much like, it's like, I think his stuff is like good mental exercise.
It's like a good thing.
It feels like lifting weights for your for your brain.
Like a lot of thought experiments, a lot of like interesting ways to think about thing and make you re-question things you believe in.
But no, I don't think he should be taken as a guy's gospel.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Entera Skincare.
What do you get when you combine a biomedical engineer, martial arts, and a distinct frustration with the skincare products on the market today?
Well, you get Entera Skincare.
Their founder, Nick Andrews, is a biochemical engineer by training.
And so he set out to create the best skincare company there is.
He had problems when he was training MMA after rolling on the mats and, you know, sparring with partners.
He was just not happy with his skin.
And he found that the few skincare products that did work out there had side effects that he just wasn't willing to put up with.
Entera Skincare's mission is to revolutionize the skincare and hair regrowth industry by offering cutting edge, scientifically advanced products that deliver real tangible results.
They provide their customers with the most effective solutions for skincare and hair regrowth needs, backed by rigorous research and development.
The team at Enterra strives to empower individuals to feel confident, beautiful, and rejuvenated, embracing their unique skin through their luxurious and innovative product range.
The new line this holiday season aims to enhance your daily skincare routine and support your skin's aging.
The Ageless bundle isn't just about skincare products.
It's an investment in skincare transformation.
Unleash the potential of your enhanced skin by reducing the signs of aging and radiate timeless beauty like never before.
Order your ageless bundle now and embark on a journey to age-defying radiance and confidence today.
Don't miss out on this incredible opportunity to transform your skincare routine.
Just go to enteraskincare.com.
Dropping the Term Reparations00:14:41
That's E-N-T-E-R-A, S-K-I-N-C-A-R-E dot com.
Use the promo code problem to get 10% off at checkout.
EnterraSkincare.com, promo code problem for 10% off.
All right, let's get back on the show.
My alt-right friend is convinced that Curtis intentionally writes in an obtuse manner as possible to alienate progressives so they don't even bother trying to dig through it.
That's funny because I just glaze over.
That's what they do to us.
That's like they write this like all the jargon stuff.
Yeah.
That is interesting.
Well, there's something about that.
There's a, I think even you, maybe it was me and you talking about that.
There's something like kind of during the COVID years when oftentimes DeSantis or Greg Abbott, they would kind of do these things, even if some of the like the proposals or the bills weren't things you would necessarily like, but they would just be a thing that is just like the middle finger to left wingers.
And it's kind of like, all right, yeah, let's keep them out.
Like while people are flooding here, let's just do a little something to let you know, like, yeah, hey, you, you won't be comfortable here.
The best example of this is the anti-abortion bill here in Texas, where it completely ignores the extremely basic legal principle of standing.
And I asked an attorney who worked at the Texas Attorney General's office, like how this makes sense.
And he was like, and I talked to Kirk Schlichter about this and he's also like, okay, this doesn't make any legal sense.
But basically how if you are Angela's doctor and Angela is having an abortion, I get to somehow sue.
And it's just nothing to do with anything.
And it makes no sense at all, but that's part of the law.
And it's kind of like the thing with the Rothbard and the homeless.
Like, what are you going to do about it?
Who cares?
Yeah.
I love that.
It's just meant to drive leftists.
Yeah.
It's we're doing a draft.
It's California and Texas and maybe New York.
Like we're just trading.
Right.
Right.
But, you know, Florida.
Yeah.
And Florida for sure.
It's anyway.
Um, it's been interesting.
Yeah.
To watch all of that stuff go down.
All right.
I had a thought in my mind, but I think I lost it.
Let's, uh, I want to talk about a couple other things because there's some people we know who have had some adversity recently.
So, um, Maj Ture is facing like a pretty serious legal battle and just looking at jail time.
Was that when he was arrested when he was on the phone with Tom?
Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah.
He was arrested and for, you know, illegal possession of a firearm and some demonstrating once again that anyone who's in contact with Tom Woods is at any moment in danger of something really bad happening.
The guy is a cancer.
He ruins lives.
He doesn't have to physically be there.
He doesn't even have to be present.
He could be thinking of you right now and something bad might happen.
He could be thinking of us right now.
We should be careful.
Even Medusa had to at least make eye contact.
But anyway, I retweeted it if Twitter.
So if you follow any of our Twitters, go if you can help him out with that.
It is pretty wild.
And again, back to the fundamental kind of libertarian insight that it's just like, it is amazing that you can have the Second Amendment and then still be looking at serious jail time.
And it's codified in Pennsylvania statute and you're still looking.
Yeah.
Can I spur out a little about Maj?
Sure, go ahead.
It drives me absolutely up the wall when people are like, oh, this guy, I don't even know what his position of reparations is.
Like he has reparations.
He's not a real libertarian.
I'm like, this guy has done more from what I have seen to prevent gun violence, save lives, educate people on how to use weapons safely in the communities where it's most likely that innocent children are going to be the victims of gun violence.
Reducing the homicide levels in cities.
So like, I'm sorry, like I am a pretty dark-hearted person, but when someone is doing that much good work, they have a lot of leeway with other stuff, especially when they're not in a position to do anything about it.
You know, I mean, it's like it's also just kind of there's something, I mean, I think you kind of touched on it before when you were talking about the like the kind of destructive infighting within these like marginalized movements.
But there's also just, it's like an inability.
This is something a lot of libertarians suffer from.
There's an inability to kind of see the forest for the trees or whatever.
So like look at the bigger picture of somebody and like, okay, even if you do have an area of disagreement with them or you think, which by the way, if you actually listen to what Maj is saying about reparations, it's not like outside the tradition of thought within the libertarian world.
Like he's not talking about like a blank check reparations for anybody with this skin tone and anybody with this skin tone gets taxed.
He's more talking about, I think, like if you can prove that, you know what I mean?
He's talking about a handful of solidly documented corporate charters from hundreds of years ago.
This is the other thing that bothers me about it is it becomes, and I don't mean this towards you because you're correct to call this out, but we get the Streisand effect, where it's all people want to focus on.
They're obsessed with it.
Yeah.
Well, I think that's true.
I also think that like personally, I would just be like, I would say, Maj, like drop the term reparations because it's been so poisoned and it just evokes these ideas that people think you're saying something that you're not saying.
But that's a semantic kind of argument.
I'm sorry, interrupt you.
So he's using reparations in the correct sense as opposed to them.
Well, yes.
Because the point of reparation is I run you over.
I pay your hospital bills.
I pay for your pain and suffering.
My debt is done.
You move on.
I move on.
Whereas with these kind of reparations for slavery, no one at all argues that we pay these reparations and then racism is taken care of and we never have to talk about it again.
Right.
So he is kind of using it in the correct term, but sometimes you have to abandon a word like woman.
Yeah.
I'm just kidding about that one.
But sometimes you have to abandon a word.
He's also mostly talking to the black community.
Well, that is a fair point, too.
So actually, you know what?
Maybe there's an argument on the other side of that too, to use a term that might actually be a little bit more likely to be able to.
And maybe he's subverting the term in a better direction.
Yes.
Yeah.
Well, that's why I said it's, it's debatable for sure.
It's us white people who need to know our place.
I see in Garcia.
I'm sorry Dave is white.
Because I was just on Tim Poole show a couple days ago.
And so I saw, and we argued for a bit while I was on the show.
And not even like that intensely, but we argued a little bit about Osama bin Laden's letter to America or whatever.
Yeah.
And so I just see a lot of people like in our camp just like really being shitty to him.
I would be like, oh, fuck Tim Poole, blah, blah, blah.
This and that.
But Sam, I'm just using him as the example in this.
Cause me and Tim were arguing a little bit.
And you just like a thing where you're like, guys, okay, look, you could disagree with him on this.
I disagreed with him on that on the show.
Sure, to space.
But like, you also go, look, Tim Poole has this huge show and he has, he's had everybody in this room on it.
He's had in the last month, he's had me, Clint Russell, Scott Horton twice, Michael Rechtenwald, Josh Smith.
He's had me on a month ago.
Yeah, he just had you on recently for the second time, I think.
Oh, that's like the fourth time.
Oh, fourth.
Okay, yeah.
It's just like, hey, who else is doing that for us?
No.
So like, if you want to like disagree with him, fine.
But why is it necessary to be like so shitty to just like, just be smart about this?
And so again, for someone like Maj, who's way closer to our, us, even if we disagree with him on a few issues, this is a guy who's got a huge platform who uses it to like to tell other people, like, hey, look, check these guys out.
And just like, I don't understand how you're just kind of like, why would you want to just burn this all down and be shitty for no reason?
I don't think that's what it is.
I've taken this detour in the last year or so where this whole enlightenment idea that if you sit down and have this free marketplace of ideas, people will approach truth is something I find increasingly not only wrong, but absurd.
And the idea that human beings are both status-seeking animals and narrative-seeking animals.
And if we were seeking for truth, as more and more information was freely available, as certainly has happened in the last 30, 40 years, we would have reached more of a consensus because truth is one thing.
It's the definite, it's the recognition of that which is real, whereas error, there's infinite errors.
And that hasn't been the case.
People are becoming more, more split apart, which tells us that we're not looking for truth.
And what I think ends up happening is I'd much rather people, instead of reading the founding fathers and John Locke, read a little bit of evolutionary psychology.
Because what happens is people who are low status look for any way possible to kind of tear down people above them and thereby increase their status.
So if I can't compete and I can't compete in terms with Tim in terms of, let's suppose, audience or charisma or something else, well, at least I compete with him because I'm right and he's wrong.
So they're always going to look for those little things to give them that leg over on that other person.
It's nice to have moral superiority in the conversation.
Yeah, there you go.
Yeah.
Great way.
We have great ways.
There's definitely a lot, a lot of truth to that.
I mean, I would kind of perhaps push back a little bit and say that like.
And then I like hearing them saying, oh, so that's just projection.
All you care about is status.
Well, I'm not saying that, but I'm just hearing them saying sure.
Yeah.
It's out there somewhere.
Tom Woods is thinking of you.
I should hope so.
But think of somebody just helping you successful.
Look, you could make an argument like truth because what you just said, right, Ayn Round would totally have issue.
No, she wouldn't.
What are you talking about?
Which part?
Well, just the idea that like there's not, I think she would kind of equate objective reality with societal progress in a sense.
So like if you look at, if you look at fields like, say, because I mean, I know, especially over the last few years, this has been, the statement might seem more inaccurate, but if you can kind of separate everything that's politicized, so like all science that's politicized just becomes terrible.
Like it's and that's true for the whole COVID science.
That's true for climate science.
That's true for all.
But if you remove the political stuff and you just go look at like, say, what physicists are doing in like, you know what I mean, in physics departments across the country, or even just like medical technological innovations that are pretty incredible.
I mean, like, you know, like I had a baby with a heart condition that needed surgery.
It's amazing what they can do today compared to what they could do 30 years ago.
And so that is to some degree, there is progression toward truth.
But I would disagree in the sense that I think all those things you mentioned have extraordinarily high barriers to entry.
No one in this room has is expected to have any point of view on heart surgery or climate or any of these other sciences.
In fact, if we try to open our mouths, we would be laughed out of the room because we wouldn't even know the verbiage and so on and so forth.
Whereas when it comes to social things, literally everyone were taught at school that you should read the newspapers and stay informed and you have to have an opinion.
And it's just like, that is completely false.
And that is really deleterious to a healthy society.
So I think, I think that's right.
And I think that it's one of the many major flaws in democracy is that the idea that we like things that require expertise and specific knowledge would ever be left up to a vote by the way.
Or even a discussion where everyone's going to be able to do that.
It just makes no sense.
It just makes no sense.
It makes no sense about anything.
I mean, deferring to expertise is how we get everything in the world done that we know is important.
Like again, my son's heart surgery.
It's not like when they'd be having these, they'd be doing rounds and like all the doctors would be like talking about like his charts and everything.
I'm never like, hey, let me jump in here and like give my thoughts on this.
You know what I mean?
You're like, yes, you guys figure this out because you know it.
And it's not just fancy stuff.
It's also like things that are like declassé, to use a douchey word.
Like even I should not have an opinion and I don't about how to roll a good cigarette with tobacco.
I have no opinion on this.
So no matter what the subject is.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
No, I'm not even like when I- It's a little, it's a little confusing, right?
When it comes to like COVID stuff and who is an expert.
I feel like we democracy perhaps muddied the waters there and got us to where we're going to be.
Because they weaponized the masses.
They got everyone encouraged to yell at other people and to force compliance.
No, I do, but I will say back to your point that you made, I do think, and this is like what Ron Paul, when he would kind of couch this in Christian language and talk about the remnant.
But there is something in like what I, the way I think about it, like when I get on big platforms is that I go like, look, I, I know, like my starting point is not thinking that like we could, like, we could get 53% of the population to embrace truth.
What are we, Archie?
And then, yeah.
Nowhere near as good as them.
What are we?
Freedom of loving is the Argentina.
That's really true.
So, you know what I mean?
Like, or that, but you do recognize that like there is some number of people and there is some percentage of people who really love logically coherent, consistent arguments and are moved by that.
And whatever that number of people is, I want to reach as many of them as I can.
We don't need a majority.
We need an alternative.
Right.
And as soon as you have, like, look at, like, here's a, here's an example.
Look at Fox News.
Fox News is hardly, they're clearly part of the corporate press.
They're clearly propaganda.
They clearly have a point of view that's very kind of specific, so and so forth.
But the fact that you had all every other network and I'm talking about, let's suppose, 25 years ago, 30 years ago, and you had even just one slight alternative calling bullshit on some of their tactics drove leftists insane to this day.
Fox News is still like, oh, you found the way they listened to Fox News.
I don't know anyone who watches Fox News.
Sorry to my buddies who work there.
But like it became for them this boogeyman because even having one alternative to this broader, a hard prog narrative was intolerable to them.
Well, look at the stuff with Twitter.
Yeah, it's really nice.
Yeah, well, it's crazy.
It is.
It's great.
And again, this is much like with Fox News.
This is far from saying Twitter is perfect.
Yeah, for Elon, it's actually John Galt.
There's a lot of decisions he's made and there's a lot of things he's done that I just don't get.
And I think I don't get changing the name.
I don't get, I don't like the blue check mark system now.
I don't, you know what I mean?
I don't.
There's a lot of things like the porn bots are really annoying.
I don't know.
They're really annoying.
The name seems to me something I can't wrap my head around because Twitter is such a universally known name, but X is not unique.
It's that aesthetic.
It's 2006.
It's Grimes.
Buying the Brand vs Gold Standard00:02:41
It's the whole thing.
Is that what it is?
It's goth and weird.
Yep.
I just feel like you were buying the brand.
Yeah.
And they hated the brand.
Communist bird is dead.
Yeah.
Well, all right.
Look, whatever.
I disagree with Jay.
We all still call it Twitter.
I don't even understand why.
It's very bizarre to me.
And I'm sorry calling them tweets are a lot better than calling them posts.
Yeah.
Post is boring.
Yeah.
A post is universal.
I don't even like it.
It annoys me every time I see so-and-so reposting.
Yeah, I know.
They retweeted it.
Yes.
That's what they did.
Like, I don't know.
I'm just an old man now stuck in my way.
I guess I like both.
But you can see how much it drives them crazy to just not have every social media.
There are people who sit in therapy and probably lay on a couch like this and talk to their therapist for 45 minutes about Twitter.
Yeah.
I think they're very, very upset about it.
It's been podcasters.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Monetary Metals.
We're thrilled to have them on board.
I've been a huge fan of this company for a long time.
So it's great that they're officially a sponsor.
If you want to start earning a yield in gold paid in gold, go check out Monetary Metals.
Monetary Metals is offering a real solution to the inflation issue and the constant currency debasement by paying interest on gold paid in gold.
They're revolutionizing the finance space by letting you opt out of the dollar interest rates completely.
Now you can opt out of the Fed system completely by having your gold earn income denominated in ounces every month.
The interest rates from monetary metals are all denominated in gold and aren't affected by the actions of the Federal Reserve.
While owning gold has protected your wealth until monetary metals, there's been no way to grow it.
Now with monetary metals, you can grow your wealth in ounces every month and see your wealth compound in an interest rate that's set in a free market by gold owners and gold borrowers.
Monetary metals lets you get on a sound money standard and makes it profitable to decrease your exposure to the actions of the Fed.
This means no more worrying about the dollar interest rate swings or how much the dollar loses value over time.
You can now get your own personal gold standard and end the Fed's grip on your savings one ounce of gold at a time.
Would you rather earn 5% on a dollar or 5% on gold?
If the answer is obvious, then head on over to monetary-metals.com and see how you can start earning a yield on gold paid in gold.
If you want to learn more, go to monetary-metals.com slash P-O-T-P.
Once again, that's monetary-metals.com slash P-O-T-P.
All right, let's get back into the show.
Well, it's been wild to see, you know, because also Elon Musk, one of the things that's that's really interesting about him, and there's many, but he's got a little Michael Malice in him.
Sound Money and Fed Exposure00:14:56
Like he likes trolling them.
He likes getting everybody upset.
He, I have it on very good authority that he is currently reading the white pill.
Very nice.
And I was talking to my protege, Trey, and I came to the realization that if I am the person who radicalizes Elon Musk in the correct way, that I will be literally be spoiler alert, John Galt, like in the first two thirds of the where he's going around behind the scenes and being like sitting him down there like, yeah, you're right.
Like, fuck this.
Dude, well, he did.
He tweeted out the debate that I did.
And also, that's why he's become an anti-Semite because he's been reading my work.
So that's the kind of clue.
He tweeted out the debate I did the other day.
And that did, I was taking the position of Hamas.
So I'm trying to push him in the right direction.
That's not, that last part was a joke for my Zionist friend, Michael.
I'm not taking the position of Hamas.
Oh, goodness.
Let's just get that on the record.
I'm just saying they had some good points.
This is going on YouTube.
I'm just saying I'd be more a part of the political faction of Hamas than the militant faction, for sure.
But I, you know, I still talked to those guys.
Okay, speaking of, this is almost a segue.
Another person who we all know, or actually, I don't know if you know him, Michael, but who's I'm supporting for president, Michael Rechtenwald.
I don't know him.
So Michael Rechtenwald is he's a well, he's he's a presidential candidate seeking the Libertarian Party nomination.
He was a college professor for years who got like into trouble with the woke mob and then got found like Mises and Rothbard and Hoppe and stuff like that and became a big part of that.
Yes, that's correct.
And he's and he's been working with the Mises Institute for years now and doing podcasts and writing articles for them.
So he just got, so he was with a publisher that's published his last like five books.
But it's some minor little college.
I've never even heard of them.
What?
The publisher he has.
Oh, is it?
Okay.
So it's, I mean, his advance must have been like three grand.
I'm not even, I don't know if there's a tiny little details of that.
From what I understood, it was a bigger thing that he lost than that.
But I don't know the details of it.
But they were like a kind of right-wing anti-cancel culture.
Oh, then I thought it was some kind of university press.
You know, I bet it was a double drink.
Are you going to mention who else dropped him?
Well, I don't know that.
So I won't mention it, but I would like to hear you mention it.
But let me just give the story because from what I understand, this was like a hundred grand type thing.
Oh, then I'll talk out of my ass.
I'm sorry.
So they've published his last five books, which have all been very critical of the woke mind virus, of COVID insanity, of big tech censorship, things like that.
So they've been all on board with this anti-anti-cancel culture thing.
And then he came out against the Israeli war in Gaza and they dropped him for it and basically called him an anti-Semite.
Oh, wow.
And like, so anyway, it was just the, there's several things there, but obviously one of them is that.
Name them.
Who's this publishing house?
Because I'd never heard of them.
And I thought there were, I assumed just from the name that they were fringe.
I could find them.
I don't recall.
Because that's important.
Because it's not.
Who's the one that Tom had, well, the conservatives had?
Who's called?
Yeah, Regnery.
Regnery.
They're not Regnery.
Yes, they're not Regnery.
All right.
Hold on.
So what were you going to say, Angela?
What's the other one?
Well, the other one, it appears, I believe I heard him say this on a live stream, that he was teaching courses at Hillsdale.
Hillsdale cancel him?
And he is, they want to, they want to part ways with him.
I did.
I did hear that.
I don't know if that's like official or not, but I heard that that was a thing.
So, I mean, my perspective on that is rather than to blow them up and send them a bunch of hate mail and tell them how much they suck, we should write to them and say, like, please don't do this.
This is a bad, this is a bad decision.
But we need to support him.
I think he is, and this is one of the reasons I'm sure you didn't run.
I think he was naive.
I'm surprised it's coming from these quarters.
Yeah.
And this early, but there was no doubt in any of our minds in this room, and I'm sure in his, that if he got any traction as a libertarian candidate for president, the consequences for him and his family personally would not be minor.
Yeah.
It's very true.
It's a difficult situation when it's kind of like the better you do, the more in jeopardy you are, or the more, you know.
There's wait, what's the name of the publisher?
Did you know?
I couldn't find his tweet doesn't say the name of it.
And I'm not going to watch the whole video right now, but I see the same stuff.
I retweeted it.
He made a video about it if people want to go check that out.
But it's look, there's a few things that are interesting.
That's one of the really interesting points, too.
Look, this was the thing that Gary Johnson was so blissfully ignorant of.
And this is what created the whole Aleppo moment.
If people don't remember, what happened was basically Gary Johnson was running third party and he was polling pretty good.
I think he was even over 10%, maybe 15% in some polls.
He was polling pretty good.
And the entire corporate media was just like, oh, great, because it's the libertarians.
And this is when Donald Trump's running.
So yeah, let's put our eyes on these libertarians.
And so they gave him all these platforms and town halls and all this stuff.
And they started pushing him.
They were very friendly to him.
And Gary Johnson was like, oh, this is totally cool.
They're like my friends.
Everything's like reasonable here.
And then they did all of this polling data came out that he was pulling more from Hillary Clinton than he was from Donald Trump.
And so then he came back into Morning Joe, like, oh, my good friends here in Morning Joe.
Let's, you know, pop an edibo and go talk about what the libertarians should do.
And it's like he just didn't realize.
It's like, oh, no, they're, they're here to ruin you.
Yes.
They're here to ruin your life right now.
Like that.
Not your candidacy, your life.
Yes.
They're trying to destroy you.
They'll just ruin your candidacy if that.
But if that doesn't work for them, then they'll go after more than that.
And so that's what the whole thing, what the Aleppo was.
It was really amazing because it was such a like concocted moment.
They were just talking about a complete other story.
Yep.
And then Mike Barnacle goes, What are your thoughts on Aleppo?
And he goes, I'm sorry, Aleppo.
And he said it kind of like, and he goes, he whispered.
Are you serious?
You don't know Aleppo?
And he goes, oh, I wait.
I'm sorry.
I was thinking it was like an acronym or something.
Like, what are you saying?
And he's like, Aleppo, Syria, where thousands of people are done.
And so he just made it, like created this moment out of nothing, out of literally just like, I mean, like, I mean, I know Aleppo is in Syria.
People have brain frauds.
I could easily, if we were talking about something else and someone just said Aleppo, be like, wait, what?
What are we talking about?
I'm thinking, like, is this like a bill that's being proposed in Congress right now?
You know what I mean?
Like, I can very easily imagine a situation where I'm talking to someone.
They ask me about Dave, and I'm like, Dave, who, and they're like, Dave Smith, the guy you're supposedly good for, you know, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Out of totally out of left field and the way that they said it to just it was all now what Gary Johnson did where he failed.
And this is, again, this is just like kind of political theater 101.
But again, to just contrast this with one of my favorite moments in the history of politics was when Donald Trump was on stage with all the 12 Republican candidates and Donald Trump is going off on the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership proposal that Hillary Clinton had at the time.
And he's like, the problem with TPP is it doesn't address China's currency manipulation.
And if you don't address China's currency manipulation, you haven't got a good deal.
And he goes on and on and on about the TPP leaving out China's currency manipulation.
And then Rand Paul, not one of the moderators, but Rand Paul raises his hand and he goes, Should somebody point out that China's not involved in the Trans-Pacific Partnership?
And Donald Trump immediately goes, I'm sorry, is that Rand Paul?
What are you at?
1% in the polls over there?
And the audience is like, and you're like, did Trump just win that moment?
Like he won.
He was totally wrong.
Had no idea what he was talking about.
Was called out on it, but just responded in the most alpha confident way and won.
So what Gary Johnson did in that moment with Aleppo was he after they said that he went, oh, whoops.
Oh, I'm sorry.
And that just dug his own grave.
Because if he had just pivoted to anything that demonstrates a knowledge of the conflict in Syria and said it with his shoulders back with a little bit of confidence, that wouldn't have been a moment at all.
But he just kind of handed it to him like that.
Anyway, these are all the types of things that you got to your point that it's like, this isn't social psychology is the game you're playing.
And you're not playing in just the game of like of objectively correct versus incorrect.
Right.
Okay.
And he could have very easily said, yeah, you use that tone, even though the blood of all those people is on your hands, on the hands of their, yeah, he'd never be invited back again.
But at that point, he knew it's a lost cause anyway.
He could just say, we want peaceful foreign policy.
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
But I mean, look, I mean, there was a million different angles specifically with the Syria conflict where like we were taking the side of al-Qaeda and ISIS to fight against Bashar al-Assad, like the dictator in a three-piece suit.
Like, what is that?
You know what I mean?
Like, which is like another whole crazy, you know, angle about how basically U.S. and Israel, Israeli foreign policy has been to try to undermine every secular Arab leader in favor of the radical jihadists because they serve their purpose.
The only thing is that people have talking about, you know, trade-offs, not solutions.
It's that the alternative to Saddam Hussein, it wasn't a Muslim country.
And now it's Muslim by law.
The alternative is not, this happened in 1979 when the Shah, I'm not that familiar with the Shah of Iran.
Let's assume he's just an asshole.
But they're like, well, he's such an asshole.
We got to get him out.
Well, the alternative isn't always like heaven.
The alternative could be there are bigger assholes.
Yeah.
And even then the alternative, right, to like overthrowing Mossadaik and installing the Shah is that like, okay, even if you think the Shah is better, and I think certainly Iran was better under the Shah than it is under its current leadership.
But yeah, you start interfering in someone else's country and that really pisses off all the radicals.
There's like levels of like how bad things can end up getting.
But yeah, no, 100%.
And that has been one of the one of the, you know, the blowback that we're dealing with today was that we would always kind of back the radical jihadists because they were the enemies of the secular leaders who we wanted to overthrow.
And I do think, like, I don't know, but if you read the neocon writing, like their writings, like if you read like stuff from the Project for a New American Century and a clean break and all of this stuff, they did have this rosy picture of what would happen after that.
And I think they believed their own bullshit.
I think they really thought democracy would sweep the reason.
Or they needed to believe it in order to kind of justify.
But I made this point in Dear Reader, you know, it's just like the U.S., every president, maybe except for, no, even Trump.
I'm sorry, how stupid of me.
They're like, when it comes to this situation, all options are on the table.
And North Korea is like, you guys get to threaten to nuke whoever you want.
And we're just supposed to be like, okay, cool.
You're the good guys.
Like, what the fuck are you talking about?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, and it's very weird.
And I would say, I mean, particularly, I think with this, this conflict in and we've done it.
Yes.
Because we're the one people who told countries done.
Look, it's very true in this conflict with Israel and Gaza.
And I don't mean to upset you, Michael, but it is amazing how many, how much they'll be like, have you, you know, it's like all the pro-Israeli people are like, have you seen what's in Hamas's charter?
Did you see what these people were chanting in the street?
Did you see what they're saying?
And you're like, yeah, but Benjamin Netanyahu just literally compared this to a biblical fight.
And Lindsey Graham is saying, flatten Gaza and like all these things.
Like these people in very powerful positions are literally making these like these claims that like, if you said this about any other group of people, you'd be like, whoa, holy shit.
And in fact, by the way, I do think that about what's in Hamas's charter and like what some of these people in protest are saying too is like fucking insane.
You're just like, yeah, why is it like people get into this tribalistic like attitude where their side saying that is completely acceptable for whatever reason?
Everybody should just mentally like, oh, you know, hmm, maybe something's up here.
Well, it gives me concern because I don't see a stable route towards peace if you have two sides who say you do not have a right to exist.
And like, where do you go with that?
It's so, and I compared it.
I forgot what show it was on.
I compared it to the whole North Korea situation and the Korean War where you have Kim Il-sung, who is the devil, and you have Sigmund Rhea in the South, South Korea, who's not a nice guy.
But you had Mao and Stalin in the North.
You have the US and the UN in the South.
And it's the Korean people who paid the price.
And that doesn't mean Sigmund Rhee is good.
Doesn't mean Kim Il-sung is good.
Doesn't mean these people aren't evil terrorists.
It's just like, but what ends up happening is countries get leveled and lots of innocent people die.
Yeah.
By the way, my favorite take on this, and shout out to Tom on this, because he had this tweet about how, you know, all this is awful going on.
Oh, but it's just okay for Israel to go in and just level all these like hospitals and schools.
And it's just like, are you on the side of Hamas or are you on the side of Israel?
I'm a libertarian.
I'm on the side of the buildings.
I looked at that.
I'm like, this is literally the most libertarian tweet I've ever seen.
Has anybody worried about the private property?
That is amazing.
That was really hilarious.
It's a very neutral take.
Well, it's, you know, it's interesting.
One of the things that's been kind of fascinating over the last couple of weeks.
And of course, this happens all the time.
I mean, I couldn't even count up the examples of this over the last just few years, but how much like there's this complete propaganda narrative and then on a dime, it stops.
And now that's just, it's so Orwellian.
Like it's just like, no, this has always been the case.
But so I remember many people, because I've been talking about the Ukraine war when I've been on Rogan like the last three times.
And so many people have called me, you know, Putin apologists, spewing Russian propaganda.
Dave is pro-Putin is what they say all the time, which like, I will say, when I critical of Israel, I do feel like this need to put a disclaimer on it, but I never felt the need with Ukraine because that like the accusation of being a Putin supporter is just so stupid on the face of it.
Like there is not one American who is sworn loyal to Vladimir Putin.
Criticizing Israel Without Apologizing for Putin00:02:45
That just doesn't wrong.
I think a lot of these Tradcons like him because the TBL GBT he is.
Maybe there's some people who like that.
Who like that about him, but it's not, but even that isn't really like a Putin loyalist.
But when you're talking about- They would prefer Putin to Kamal Harris as president.
Well, we'd have to sit down and have a real debate about him.
I don't know.
Kamal Harris.
This is pretty tough stories.
We only have so much time on this podcast.
I don't know.
We all are Putin.
Wow.
That's a good way to put it for innocent kids.
That laughed about it.
Putin's ever laughed about it.
But when I'm talking about Israel, I do feel more of a need to be like, okay, listen.
And I'm not like, there are people who hate Jews.
I'm not one of those people.
You know what I mean?
I'm just being critical of the Israeli government.
But like, I do see enough of that that I'm like, okay, let me just like make it clear that like I'm not coming from that perspective.
Anyway, so what is your solution there, though?
The solution for Israel and Palestine?
Well, I mean, you know, like I could tell you what I think the solution is, but then like actually getting to that would probably require a whole new generation of leadership that isn't the Likud Party, that isn't Hamas.
It's a long road.
Okay, that's very fair.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, a brand new sponsor who we are just so thrilled to have on board.
Of course, it's Phoenix Ammunition, the premier supplier to the militia industrial complex with 100% of their sales going directly to American citizens.
No military contracts, no law enforcement deals, simply the highest quality American-made ammunition served directly to the people the Second Amendment was written for.
Phoenix Ammunition uses the highest quality component parts and the most advanced quality control system in the country to deliver exactly what you expect while at the range or when your life is on the line and performance matters above all else.
Phoenix Ammunition is the trusted supplier for top-level competitive shooters, world-class training companies, including Haley Strategic Training and Warrior Poet Society, as well as recreational shooters nationwide.
They ship directly to you with no middleman or distributors, just the best quality ammo made by the American workers in Detroit, Michigan.
Check them out at phoenixammo.com.
That's F-I-N-I-X-A-M-M-O.com.
Subscribe to their propaganda newsletter and follow them on Twitter at Phoenix Ammunition for the latest in product updates, high quality trolling, small L libertarian community, and world-class meme warfare.
Save up to 25% all day, every day with their automatic volume-based discounts.
Go follow them on Twitter.
Come for the ammo.
Stay for the memes.
Phoenixammo.com at Phoenix Ammunition on Twitter.
All right, let's get back on the show.
America Won't Back You Forever00:15:17
If you're going to examine the problem with Israel and the Palestinians, and you're not going to start with the acknowledgement that the way Israel was created was by forcefully taking a whole bunch of shit that had been owned by the Arabs and really forcefully evicting them by the hundreds of thousands,
and that ever since 1967, they have been occupying in one form or another, these Palestinians, all the way to the winter war in 67 and just determined they can occupy them and subjugate them forever.
And if you're not going to look at that, you're never even going to be looking at what the situation is.
And I think there's an old, freaking, I don't remember the quote off the top of my head.
Maybe you will.
I think it's an Abraham Lincoln quote, and it was about ending slavery.
And he said something about how like we've got the tiger by the.
That's not Lincoln.
You sure it's Lincoln?
No, maybe I'm wrong.
I don't think Lincoln's a tiger talker.
But anyway, it was something like, we can't let him go and we can't keep him.
You know what I mean?
And I think the feeling from the Israeli side is like, well, we can't take our boot off their neck or they're going to lash out at us.
But they're not wrong.
Well, they may not be wrong, but you've got, but then that's a different conversation.
It is a different conversation.
But you've got to take your boot off of their neck because you just don't have a right to do it anymore.
And it's been, it's been way too long of doing this.
And the truth is that I don't exactly think it's right to say, like what Laura Loomer, who I was debating the other day, like what she'll say is something like, well, this is just the nature of Islam and they're just fundamental.
That's true.
That's not true.
Because Palestinians are not the same as people in Iran, not the same people in Indonesia.
Well, but are you telling me?
Are you telling us all the fifth of the world?
Yeah, Israel has since the 70s.
And I don't think the West Bank's the same as Gaza.
No, it's not.
Even that.
But since the 1970s, Israel has been at peace with Egypt.
They've been at peace with Jordan.
They've been at peace with Saudi Arabia.
Are you going to tell me that they do not have a radical Islam problem in those countries?
The difference is that they have their independence.
They have states.
They're not ruled by Israel.
And I think you're never going to solve the problem until you end that.
So I think like Israel certainly has a right to try to kill the people who pulled off October 7th.
I think they you would hope.
Like I'm not suggesting there's no violence should be used in the response to this.
They should, if they were wise, uh, seeing as how they are a tiny strip of a country surrounded by you know Arab countries and there's some hostilities there.
Um, they were wise, they should do it in a way that avoids civilian casualties as much as possible and certainly not talk about those civilians like their lives mean nothing, which is what they're doing.
Um, and then they should just negotiate a two-state solution, which I listen, it's not going to be they're never going to give back all of Israel.
And I don't think any serious people are like suggesting that they do, but they should return to 67 borders and grant those territories independence.
I think it's extremely reasonable.
I think you would see more serious progress on it if there was a discussion about the United States removing some of its foreign aid to Israel.
But I think the other issue is I think Hamas is doing the dirty work of a lot of nefarious actors.
I think you're correct.
And that's why just like I was saying with the North Korea stuff, it's like they're being used because a lot of these other Arab countries would rather have war than have refugees.
But what else do they want?
They want our country out of their area.
Right.
And I think if we were willing to make concessions and say we were going to end foreign aid to Israel, that might be huge.
Well, look, I mean, look, this is so anyway, this is the thing I was going to talk about before, and then we'll wrap up in a second.
But what I was getting at, and then we got into this, which was very interesting.
But I just got to ask, is there anyone who is opposed to like long-term a two-state solution?
Yes.
Absolutely.
The Likud Party.
Are they like, it's just okay.
I mean, they'll say Benjamin Netanyahu will say when speaking to an international audience, like theoretically, he's for a two-state solution somewhere down the line.
Yitzhak Rabin, I mean, like the old and Barack and like the older, more liberal leaders would talk a lot about that.
But Benjamin Netanyahu will literally say the reason he said, he told his own liken party members, the reason he was supporting Hamas is because then this guarantees we'll never have to give him a state.
And we can support these guys.
Who's going to give Hamas a state in the international community?
It's like the deep state screwing over people here in the United States.
Yeah.
Who are trying to make progress?
Yes.
But anyway, so to your point, because so basically what's changed now in the narrative where the propaganda stopped is that it's totally okay to talk about how Hauselinsky needs to negotiate with Vladimir Putin.
Now, I heard Joe Scarborough, who called me out on Twitter as a Putin supporter, literally just said earlier today on his show that it's like, yeah, well, you know, we can't just keep giving him aid forever.
He's going to have to negotiate.
No, I haven't.
I didn't.
What are you waiting for?
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
No, I will.
Hey, remember this?
I will.
I 100% will.
How's that intern doing?
You know what?
I can't, you know what?
Now that is, I saw it earlier on.
I saw it like literally right before I was heading over here.
So I didn't even do it.
But then I was like, yeah, why didn't I?
I totally should.
I'll do that later.
Ukraine's bleeding as badly as Micah from her facelifts.
But it's, but yeah, but look, I mean, it's.
I love the idea.
I'm sorry to interrupt you, but like when Trump tweeted out that Micah was at Mar-a-Lago and bleeding badly, like someone would be leaving the hospital after facelifts to wear the drinks.
She's at Mar-a-Lago to dress.
Everyone's like, don't go to, oh, you look lovely, Micah.
Didn't you hear her?
But then she'd come home and she and Joe would be like, what are you doing?
You're getting dressed.
And she's like, oh, I'm going to the party.
You think I'm not going just because I'm bleeding out of my face?
I'm going.
Yeah.
Sure, I'm bleeding badly.
It doesn't mean I can't enjoy a nice dinner party.
But anyway, but so it's just, but one of the things there, number one, it's pretty crazy.
Micah got invited and Micah is going.
It's okay.
She's like, clay face.
I'm going to hold it up.
So anyway, it is a bizarre perspective to have been saying these things on some pretty big shows over the last few years and getting called every name in the book and then just listening to all the people, the people who were calling you those names.
Like now, and look, even someone who was not name-calling or whatever, but we did the debate on your show with Constantin Kassin.
And he's he's he called for the end of it now.
He still defended his support for it the whole time, but at least at least he's gotten to the point that it's like, yeah, look, there's not, there's nothing else that can be done here.
But the point is that to Angela's point, this really kind of is some pretty solid evidence in your favor is like, but so what is it that they're doing now in order to bring this war to an end?
They're saying, hey, America isn't going to back you forever.
So you have to go negotiate with Vladimir Putin because obviously, if the U.S. isn't writing them a blank check, then his only option is to negotiate with them.
And it just, it demonstrates that there is this horrific moral hazard that comes along with the U.S. government saying, you have a blank check forever from us when the biggest bully in the world is like, any fight you fight, we have your back.
It tends to lead you to picking fights that you might otherwise not.
But the science has changed.
But there's the other concern, which is that the U.S. has to some extent been a muzzle on Netanyahu.
And that but for the U.S., he really would glass Gaza.
Well, the thing is that that is that there is truth to that in certain instances, but there's also been times where the U.S. has because like the U.S. does exert a lot of control and influence over Israel and Israel also exerts some influence over us.
But there have been times also where we've, not with Netanyahu, I don't believe, but where we've discouraged them from making peace deals and things like that.
There would be more consequence for their actions.
That's the thing.
I think they would be a lot more concerned about there being a consequence for their actions.
Vis-a-vis, though, this is the point with Ukraine.
I remember while this is all going on, I hadn't done my homework on Ukraine and I was biting my tongue and people like, oh my God, how can you not have a position?
You were born there.
And I said, we don't know what's going on.
And I said, I would bet money that there is an enormous amount of pressure on Zeliansky behind the scenes not to cut a deal with Putin.
You've actually been proven right about that.
That was such an obvious thing to me that there's so much money and power, whatever to be had, that he had a gun to his head, not literally, but or possibly literally.
Well, it's, it's, you know, it's funny because for say like whoever the bad guys are, the bad side, it's always so easy for people to see that they don't care about the lives of their own people.
Like it's very easy for people to see that like Hamas does not care if like innocent Palestinians are killed because in fact, they knew that would be the response to October 7th.
And they were like, look, but then this will get more of the world on our side.
And so they're clearly like that's their game here.
And then, but nobody ever thinks that might be applying to, say, like the West or and that the fact that like, oh, like the people who are putting their Ukraine flags up and waving for them were actually quite happy to sacrifice many Ukrainians in order to hurt Vladimir Putin.
And so it's just like, when you look at it, though, it's like the idea that you're now going, first off, after calling like people like me all these fucking names, these people are now going to say, hey, like, let's cut the aid and force negotiations when all you did was just prolong this war.
The deal, I guarantee you, the deal that they come to to end this war is going to look a lot like the deal they had the first time.
You know, you say to him and go, the one name you can't call me is wrong.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So much pain.
So much pain over there for just they could have just let him have it.
Yeah.
And I don't know exactly, you know, you never really know these numbers for absolute certain, but you get a better gauge on them as the years go on and stuff.
But it's in, it seems to be in the hundreds of thousands that have died in this moment.
I'm sorry.
It's also really easy for us to sit here in these luxurious seats and be like, oh, just let him.
Just let him have it.
Do you know what I mean?
Like, I do.
And especially given the history of Ukraine.
No, no, no, no.
Look, I think I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's not simple.
My position isn't even necessarily just let him have it as like that's the right thing to do.
And I've always said, like, if Ukrainians wanted to fight for that land, I think they have every right to.
I'm saying that we shouldn't be the big muscly guy in back of them saying, go fight this fight.
We got your back.
Because you're encouraging them to fight.
And the reality of the situation is like, you know, it's more akin to a situation of like a mugger pulls a gun on you and asks for you and says, give me your wallet.
I'm probably going to recommend that you give that guy your wallet because this, this could get for you.
The mugger, this is more like a home invader.
Sure, that's fair.
So if he's in your house and he's like, I'll just give me the TV and I'll get out of here.
It's just like, I don't know that you're not going to take my wife.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So it's a calculus.
And again, we all know Putin's not a good guy.
And it's just like, that's the thing when you're dealing with these negotiations.
Get the fuck out.
Did you come on my show and say when you're dealing with these kind of actors who are not acting in good faith?
I mean, this is the problem with the negotiations.
He'd been talking about, you know, what he planned to do, what he wanted for a long time.
And I think the people in the United States were just ignoring it.
Sure.
Except for Alex Jones, who was not ignoring it.
He was paying attention and reporting on it.
Yeah.
Well, look, I mean, there were a lot of, a lot of people who, the, the people who kind of have the best track record of getting this stuff right over the last 30 years.
A lot of them and like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan and guys like this who were always saying like, look, we just should not be expanding our military alliance into the former Soviet territory.
I mean, what do you think the reaction is going to be?
Even George Kennan, who was the containment strategy cold warrior, you know, even he said when they first started expanding NATO, he's like, what?
Like, we won the Cold War and now you're making a new world.
The whole point of NATO was the Soviet Union.
And not only not disbanding it, because what they had first said about that in the 90s was like, oh, we're going to turn it kind of more into like a political organization type thing than a military alliance.
But that never happened.
And then, but just to be have your military alliance, like moving east.
How would that be perceived by Russia as anything other than a threat?
And I think this is something you probably understand better than I do, but there is Americans have a very tough time of trying to put ourselves in the position of other people and think about how we would react to this.
But you also have to like kind of keep in mind that, you know, Russia is a country that was invaded twice in the 20th century and suffered casualties in the millions.
Yes.
Far more than there were World War II.
Yes.
That they that they had their entire government collapse twice in the 20th century with the Bolshevik Revolution and then with the collapse of communism that they went through.
Well, two, there was the czar, then you had the Bolsheviks.
Yes, yes, that's right.
So three, yeah, that's right.
And then, and also in between there, there were all types of periods of like just gruesome suffering for people that I think Americans, it's almost impossible for them to understand a book about that.
Yeah, someone really wrote a book about it.
Someone should come, maybe one with like a message of optimism at the end or something like that.
We could call.
All right.
You know what?
I'm going to get right on this.
But really, by the way, really a great book, by the way.
If any of you guys haven't read The White Pill yet, go read it.
It's really phenomenal.
The author is a little shady, but the book, the books, I'm not speaking.
I'm saying you have to separate the man from the, you know what I mean?
Like, you don't, it's not a comment on him.
But, but anyway, so you've gone through all of that.
And then there's this military alliance like approaching you.
You're going to perceive that in a very different way.
And if me saying that, your response to that is like, you're a Putin supporter or something.
It's like, okay, fine.
The point I was making was that it seems like we went through a lot of unnecessary bloodshed and misery when we could have negotiated the same deal in the beginning without all the misery and bloodshed.
I don't think that I would hope that no one would expect people to just say, sure, you can have my country.
Yeah.
But there's no reason that you can't just go to the negotiating table and press and try to take months, you know, maybe even years.
It's worth trying.
It's always worth trying.
I completely agree with you on that.
All right, guys.
Well, we are at a, we're at time here.
Thank you guys both very much for coming out.
Again, Angela, what can people do if they want to check out the Libertarian Party or any other stuff you're doing?
It's put a gun to their temple.
Join and then we'll find you.
Instead of like, yeah, instead of moth to a flame, it's moth to a hellfire.
Join donate at lp.org and please support us at rageagainstwar.com.
We are fundraising right now to put together our rally.
We need to raise a lot of capital to get the stage and everything, all the logistics at the Lincoln Memorial.
It's going to be an amazing event on February 17th.
Wait, it's going to be at the Lincoln Memorial.
Yeah.
Against War.
No, we're going to be giving him the finger the whole time.
So it's not going to be a lot of fun.
Our backs are to Lincoln.
Fundraising for Lincoln Memorial Rally00:01:04
Oh, and we didn't get a chance to talk to this, talk about this, but I had lunch with Lynn Albrecht, Ross Albrick's mom, and he is doing as well as could be expected in prison.
He's not in solitary.
He has like a community.
He's getting a degree.
He's working some mediation program where he helps people solve problems.
So, and she gets to visit him once a week for six hours at a time.
I mean, that's a big, big deal.
So, and you can follow him on Twitter.
So, it's, I'm very glad to be able to pass this on.
And I did give a shit about being a boomer.
She's got a great sense of humor, that woman.
She's really, a really great person.
And I, you know, I've met her several times and I really, really like her a lot.
And it's just, you know, I feel awful for what the whole situation they've been through and what she's been living with, but she does, she's a real champion.
And she's always kind of like just pressing on to the next thing.
Like they lose one battle and she's like, okay, get to the next one.
And getting her to crack up to me was like a personal, like, okay, I did my good deed for the day.