Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 6, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

01:57:30

Sidebar with Richard Hanania - Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	It's coming, people.
	give it a second.
	Thank you.
	Welcome to today's update on COVID-19 in Alberta.
	With us today is Dr. Dina Hinshaw, Chief Medical Officer of Health for Alberta.
	Dr. Hinshaw will provide brief remarks, and then we will open the floor to questions.
	I now turn it over to Dr. Hinshaw.
	Thank you, Lisa, and good afternoon, everyone.
	Due to a scheduling challenge, we unfortunately again do not have sign language interpreters available today.
	Yep, that's all I can handle of that.
	Why did I bring that up, people?
	Well, first of all, it has nothing to do with the stream of this evening.
	But I had to bring up that clip.
	That is the chief medical officer of Alberta coming on stage with what can only be described as the most atrocious theatrics to instill fear in everybody watching.
	Now, you'll notice the manner in which Dr. Hinshaw took off her mask, disinfected her hands like she would infect herself because she's already just taken off the mask.
	I posted another video a while back where after speaking on the podium, she proceeded to put the mask back on, re-disinfect her hands, go off, let someone else speak, then come back on, then remove it pinky under the little thingy things, disinfect her own hands, and then proceed to speak and do it again.
	I am also very sensitive people to people's issues with potential...
	Obsessive-compulsive disorder.
	I think I can identify it when it's bonafide.
	I think I can recognize it.
	I've read enough to know.
	And it is a lose-lose situation one way or the other, because if she does indeed have that level of OCD, that this is what she can't help but do in order to satisfy that inner anxiety, she has no business being a chief medical officer.
	To impose, instill, and infuse that neuroses in a general population.
	That's the one thing.
	But I see our guest in the back.
	So I'm only going to end it with this, people.
	This is a quick one.
	There was a tweet today coming from Sheila Gunn-Reed, Rebel News, quoting someone who was quoting Sheila Gunn-Reed today.
	Saying, you have zero cases of influenza in April 13, 2021.
	You say you reassess data.
	Is the number still accurate?
	Dr. Hinshaw says yes.
	There have been no reported cases of seasonal influenza.
	Great, this person asks.
	Is it possible that some influenza cases were counted as COVID?
	Hinshaw says no.
	Well, for anyone who knows Hinshaw, let me just get it.
	For anyone who knows Hinshaw, because if you've been following my channel, you do already know this.
	Dr. Bina Hinshaw was the individual who attributed the youngest COVID death in Alberta to COVID.
	However, as it turned out...
	The individual who she claimed was the youngest COVID death in Alberta...
	Oh, I hear her voice again.
	Sorry, hold on.
	Closing that.
	The person that she identified as being the youngest individual to die from COVID in Alberta was a 14-year-old boy with stage 4 brain cancer who, by the accounts of his sister, was in a coma.
	That they tested this individual and he tested positive and then subsequently died after being in a coma.
	And then Dina Hinshaw...
	Later on, when this information became public because of the bravery of the sister of this kid, had to apologize and say that the teen didn't actually die from COVID, despite having said it earlier.
	But now, believe her this time, people.
	Believe her this time that it's not possible, the seasonal flu, that COVID, that the seasonal flu has been attributed to COVID.
	It's not possible.
	Trust her now.
	She's not lying.
	All right.
	With that said, people, that was the intro.
	Standard disclaimer, people.
	Super Chats 30% goes to YouTube.
	If you don't like it, we're on Rumble Simultaneously Streaming.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	We've got our guest of the evening for one hour, and we're going to make some good time of it.
	Sorry, I should have given you the heads up, Richard.
	How are you doing?
	Doing good.
	How are you?
	Very good.
	I'm going to bring in Robert.
	I'm going to see what order looks best.
	I'll put the both of you on top.
	And make sure the audio levels are good.
	Robert, how are you doing?
	Good, good.
	Okay.
	People in the chat, tell me if the audio levels are good.
	Richard, we only have an hour, so I can't delve into your childhood except to ask one question.
	Is your father on Wikipedia?
	No, my father is not important enough to be on Wikipedia.
	He was a stand-up comic.
	No, he's a distant relative.
	There's a distant relative named Ray Hanania.
	I met him maybe once at a family reunion, but no, we're not close relations.
	I think he's like a second or third uncle or something like that.
	Well, it's very cool.
	You have a striking resemblance nonetheless, so I guess genetics is a powerful thing.
	Richard.
	For anybody who doesn't know who you are, we have an elevator pitch intro, but I'm going to skip over the childhood tonight so we can get to the meat of the issue.
	Elevator pitch for those who don't know who you are.
	Who are you?
	I am a writer.
	I run a think tank called the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology.
	We put out reports on various topics like coronavirus, which seems like you were just talking about, other topics, academia.
	Culture there.
	I'm also my own writer.
	I have my own Substack.
	And I'm on Twitter.
	And I write op-eds.
	And that's basically it.
	How did you get into this space?
	In the sense of what led you into political philosophy and other related topics?
	So I was an academic and I was thinking about becoming an academic.
	I was studying political science with a focus on international relations.
	I became a little bit sort of disillusioned with it.
	I didn't think we were doing a lot of relevant work.
	I thought that, you know, writing academic articles wasn't that fun or interesting or didn't really get at things.
	So I started just, you know, sort of going out there on Twitter, started writing a few op-eds.
	I got a great reaction.
	I mean, people really liked what I was writing.
	And I said, you know, this is better than academia.
	Why don't I just want to...
	I just tell people directly what I think.
	Now, let me ask you the question.
	People are going to ask for your credentials in order to affirm their belief in you if you say what they agree with and in order to contradict you if you don't.
	What are your credentials for anybody who's going to want to be assured or assured of their belief in you or assured in their doubt in you?
	I hate credentials, but I do have some credentials.
	I went to the University of Chicago Law School.
	I have a PhD in political science from UCLA.
	I was a research fellow at Columbia up until 2020.
	I'm now a visiting scholar at the University of Texas, Austin.
	And I guess that's it for official credentials.
	And I've been in the Washington Post, New York Times.
	I've published a lot of op-eds.
	And in that capacity, you've mentioned the sort of class prejudice and other aspects that create a certain sort of gap between who gets on Fox News and institutional media and who's promoted and who's propagated and who's not.
	Can you describe some of that?
	Yeah, I think the credentials are a shortcut for people to say, well, this person's smart.
	He went to a good law school or he went to a really good college.
	At least there's some minimum.
	He's not completely stupid, right?
	There's people who go to Harvard who are crazy, but you're not going to be bottom 10 or 20% of intelligence.
	That's realistic.
	So it's partly realistic, not that people with credentials can't believe crazy things, but I think it's a way for people to screen others out.
	And then when a person with credentials agrees with you, that's...
	It's not always the case that the people with credentials are going to be the ones they listen to because when there's somebody with credentials telling people what they want to hear and somebody with credentials telling them what they don't want to hear, you'll see that in a lot of COVID stuff.
	Like in the media, the people who signed the Great Barrington Declaration, you look at their credentials, some of them very, very impressive.
	Some of them much more impressive than the people who get on CNN or MSNBC, but those people get listened to because it's both credentials and telling people what they want to hear.
	I'm trying to get a link to your sub stack so I can put it in the pinned comment.
	But Richard, people are going to say, first of all, am I obliged to call you a doctor if you have a PhD?
	I saw a tweet the other day that I had some fun engaging with, but then I disengaged.
	People are going to say, good, a PhD in political science is good.
	But unless you have a PhD in Eastern European, Russia, Ukrainian politics from the history of the two countries, you're in no position to formulate an opinion or...
	If they agree with you, they're going to say, yeah, you got a PhD.
	How do you choose what to focus on?
	What is your focus now in terms of geopolitics?
	We'll go over your book briefly, but I think everybody's going to want to hear about your opinion on some contemporaneous stuff.
	So, I mean, the stuff on, you know, Russia, Ukraine, that's pretty easy.
	I mean, it's a pretty important thing.
	It's affecting our domestic politics.
	You know, there's not a lot of interstate wars we get these days over the last several decades.
	So that's, you know, that conflict has taken up a lot of my attention.
	You know, a lot of the stuff is just, you know, stuff that I'm interested in, stuff that I see.
	So the culture war stuff, I don't think it's trivial.
	I think it's very important.
	So I've written a lot about that.
	You know, I write when I think I have something unique to say that other people haven't said, you know.
	I have something that other people have said, and I just agree with them.
	I just say, listen to this person.
	But for example, when it came to the wokeness stuff, I think a lot of people were missing the legal aspect of it.
	So I have an article called Woke Institutions is Just Civil Rights Law.
	So it's basically my interest, the things that annoy me, things that I think are important, and things where I think I have something unique to say.
	And in your experience in the academy, because it seems like America's and the West intelligentsia, if you will, has been subject to a lot of groupthink, particularly for those that get ordained with certain kind of privileged positions, whether it's within the...
	Court of Public Opinion with the press, whose books get promoted, who gets certain State Department gigs, so on and so forth.
	What was your experience?
	In other words, how much was it like Yale Law School today, which is just inundated with wokeism to such a degree they think they're entitled to it, they should protest people's speech.
	How much was that your experience in the academy, or was it different?
	You know, it's more, I mean, it was more subtle when I was there.
	You know, it's more like...
	You know, it's more like what topics people choose to study, you know, what evidence they consider, you know, sufficient to establish a hypothesis.
	And, you know, the people who tended to get ahead tended to be the ones, at least what I saw in academia, were the ones who were very good at jumping through hoops.
	They didn't necessarily, the people who became presidents weren't necessarily the most woke people there.
	They had to be, you know, sufficiently, I think, sufficiently woke, sufficiently, you know, be sort of obedient to the dominant ideology.
	But they were people who were good at, like, Turning out papers that often took a lot of technical skill.
	It doesn't mean necessarily they were right or there weren't real flaws in the literature or they were studying something that, you know, didn't have any kind of, like, broader relevance.
	I mean, that was, I think, the main problem.
	But they were often intelligent people who, you know, worked hard, who could sort of, were very good at jumping through hoops.
	The legal, you know, the legal academia, from my experience, you know, I was there, you know, I graduated from law school in 2013 and she used Chicago at the time.
	You know, there's still the Chicago.
	We were the only top law school that actually, for example, didn't have gender quotas on law review.
	So basically, when you do law review, it's just basically, as you know, Bob, you're a lawyer, it's basically just based on grades.
	Grades are based on blind grading.
	And when you do that, what do you know?
	It's all men.
	And so when UChicago was basically the only top school that had almost Completely male law review.
	They've changed that I heard like five years ago.
	They did eventually change that.
	And there's other little changes.
	I mean, I had a professor who in his free speech class would use the N-word in class.
	And I was just wondering the other day, how long would this go on?
	How long would they allow this, you know, to demonstrate a free speech concept?
	And then somebody posted on Twitter or they said it to me that basically he announced in like 2019 or 2020 or something that, you know, he's not going to use that word anymore.
	So it was like, yeah, you know, times have changed.
	I'm sure things have changed in Chicago.
	They did the gender quotas.
	They have more speech codes.
	I think legal academia, you know.
	But you see at Yale, like what my friend Aaron Sabarium reports on.
	That was pretty unthinkable at Chicago at the time.
	Probably still very unlikely at Chicago.
	It's a different institutional culture.
	But I'd say the legal profession in general and law schools are better than You know, political science or sociology because, well, conservatives have political representation.
	So, you know, of the top justices of the Supreme Court and the most important appellate court judges, a certain percentage of them are going to be conservatives because they're appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
	So that, I think, puts some limits on craziness.
	It has to be sort of representative of, you know, conservative views, too.
	And that's why, you know, when we see law schools go woke and become crazy, it's more concerning than typical academia because, you know, the legal profession is where a lot of the power is.
	I have a specific question.
	I saw a post you put on Twitter today, which I'm going to bring up.
	I won't play the video of the individual from TikTok.
	I'm not sure that that's going to help people understand.
	He was talking about the don't say gay bill in Florida also says don't say straight.
	And so therefore, you know, the rationale is this bill therefore precludes you from talking about nuclear families, parents, all sorts of things which, as far as I understand, is not even in the bill or the object of the bill where, you know, talking about sexuality, sexual orientation is not about parents or couples.
	But then you responded to him and say, it's true that such laws apply equally to homosexuality and heteros, just like civil rights laws, as written, appear to protect whites and men.
	But our mandates to discriminate against them.
	Again, this is basically conservatives for once acting like liberals.
	Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?
	Because I'm trying to understand it.
	I think I understand the gist of it is that these civil rights laws, which were intended to create equality, ultimately became used as tools or weapons in a way to discriminate against those, in theory, who had been discriminating in the past so as to promote equality, but in so doing, actually promote reverse discrimination.
	Yeah, so you're interested.
	So yeah, there's a lot to unpack in that tweet.
	You picked a very high-level one.
	Do you want the part about civil rights or you want about the Florida bill, which I think this gentleman here was talking about?
	Yeah, let's start with the civil rights and then we'll work into the Florida bill.
	Sure.
	So basically, the Civil Rights Act is a very simple law.
	It says employers and the government will not discriminate based on race, sex, national origins, or religion, basically.
	And that sounds nice.
	That sounds like it protects everyone.
	But it doesn't actually protect anyone because it's enforced by courts and bureaucrats and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
	And a discrimination case against whites and men basically is pretty much unheard of.
	And it's actually the opposite of that.
	There's mandates to discriminate.
	Because if you give a test to employees and say whites or men do better than other groups, the government will come after you.
	There's been consent decrees where the government has basically mandated quotas, even though the bill specifically says no quotas and no disparate impact standard, discrimination has to be intentional.
	So civil rights law actually, on its surface, it looks nice and looks like it treats all citizens equally.
	In practice, it does not.
	And so that's the part about the civil rights law in the tweet.
	And now getting to the don't say gay bill, which we've all been addressing.
	Nothing in it even alludes to that.
	Yeah, you're right.
	I understand where it says it doesn't say don't say heterosexual either.
	And I don't believe under that bill that you could teach a kindergartner about sexual activity even among heterosexuals unless I'm reading it wrong.
	Am I reading it wrong?
	No, I don't think you are.
	I think it's a bit vague, but I don't think that's a thing against the law because all laws are vague, and now they're pretending that this one is particularly vague.
	Like you said, civil rights law never really defined discrimination, and that was up to courts and bureaucrats to decide.
	But I'm responding less to the bill.
	I'm responding to a debate on Twitter.
	So here's sort of the context.
	So a lot of people will be on TikTok or they'll be on videos, and they'll say, look, I'm a homosexual in Florida.
	I feel like I'm scared.
	to talk about my marriage or my partner.
	And then other people like conservatives have been coming around and saying, well, you know, we shouldn't talk about your partner anyway.
	And then other people came along and said, wait a minute, it's not that unusual for like telling a kindergarten class, okay, like my husband likes this hat or something like that.
	Like, you know, when I was a kid, we knew who was married and who was pregnant or not, right?
	And so my view, my argument was like, You know, I don't think that argument is actually right, the conservative argument that nobody ever knows, you know, whether their teacher is married.
	You know, what if they're pregnant or something and you have to have a conversation with kids?
	It's not like we have zero, like...
	You have a rule that there's blanket no talking about relationships or pregnancy or anything.
	Sometimes things like that just come up.
	I think what a lot of people are uncomfortable with is they think homosexuality and heterosexuality are actually different.
	And they don't want to say that I'm comfortable with a man saying I'm married to a woman, and they are uncomfortable with saying I'm on a man character.
	I think people have the right to be uncomfortable with some things and not others.
	Many religious faiths have that view, most religious faiths.
	But I think that's basically what's going on here.
	And I think that a lot of people aren't comfortable making that argument, which is why they sort of have to pretend, okay, nobody should ever mention a spouse in a kindergarten class, which nobody adheres to that role.
	Speaking of discrimination, I have been somewhat startled at the openness and brazenness that the United States entities are now discriminating openly and overtly against people of Russian nationality.
	That the Boston Marathon just announced they are going to, that people that were Russian or Belarusian, that were going, just because of their national origin, will now not be allowed to participate in the marathon.
	Now, whether or not civil rights laws apply to them might be a different matter.
	That will depend on the circumstances under both state and federal law.
	But, like, for example, Airbnb saying if you are of Russian nationality, you cannot use our services.
	I think that is patently illegal under our existing discrimination laws.
	What are your thoughts?
	So it's funny you mentioned the Boston Marathon.
	They were blown up by some Chechens some years ago, Russians from Russia.
	They didn't do it then, which is funny.
	Now they're banding Russians from the Boston Marathon.
	I hadn't heard that.
	I hadn't heard about Airbnb.
	You're talking about Russians in the United States, not just Russians in Russia, but Russians in the United States.
	Yeah, if you have Russian nationality, you cannot use Airbnb, period.
	Yeah, that's national origins.
	I mean, that is pure, you know, letter of the law.
	That's easy.
	That's easy, but like we said, the political, I mean, if the law is not going to protect American white males, you know, forget about protecting Russians at this point in time.
	Yeah, it's a perfect demonstration.
	You're absolutely right.
	Hold on.
	Let's see this here.
	It says no, when it starts with no, Airbnb isn't banning people from, well, let's see this, from using its service.
	Airbnb said it.
	It isn't banning Russian or Belarusian nationals from making reservations on this platform.
	It is restricting users who are in Belarus and Russia from making new reservations.
	Can you believe...
	First of all, Robert, I mean, I had to do this in real time.
	I hadn't heard the story either.
	They're not banning people.
	They're just restricting users who are in Belarus and Russia from making new reservations, a spokesperson said.
	Airbnb suspended operations in Russia and Belarus a month ago.
	Okay, so I'm not sure that I believe that, but we'll have to...
	It isn't banning...
	From making reservations on his platform, but they are restricting people in Belarus.
	Yeah, you can see what they originally put out were, yes, from Russia and Belarus can no longer make reservations, which appear to be pure national origin discrimination.
	Somebody probably walked back the official policy before they did get sued, is my assumption.
	Well, but I'm not sure that this is much better.
	Some users interpreted that.
	Oh, here, sorry.
	Yeah, they interpreted the policy.
	On Tuesday, a Russian language announcement on Airbnb's website sparked anger and confusion on Twitter when some users highlighted the statement that was translated into, or translated to, guests from Russia and Belarus can no longer make reservations on Airbnb.
	Some users interpreted the statement to mean the policy applies to all Russians and Belarusian nationals, no matter where they are based.
	So apparently, yeah, it's not all Russians and Belarusians, only those in Russia and Belarus and only blocking them from making new ones.
	Despite what they originally said, it sounds a little bit like the GoFundMe initially saying, we're going to keep the money and give it to a charity of our choice.
	Well, I mean, Richard and Robert, you guys are not going to be able to make sense of this.
	How can any of this madness possibly be justified, especially in light of the Korematsu?
	I guess Korematsu was affirmed, right?
	So then this could still be justified in law?
	Well, they reversed it.
	I mean, ultimately, in 2018, they officially declared a dead letter law because there the discrimination was just, you know, the Muslim ban, though it wasn't a Muslim ban, it's fascinating the same people who opposed any kind of discrimination there, even though there wasn't quite what they made it out to be, are now cheering and championing this discrimination.
	Across the Western world, just based on national origin.
	It's a whole different method of collective punishment, which was in part used to justify a wide range of things in the past.
	Now, in terms of following, have you been surprised at all at the sort of groupthink that has consumed the Western media in terms of the Russia-Ukrainian conflict?
	And what's your own take on it?
	So I, you know, I always expect groupthink, especially on foreign policy questions.
	I mean, there's just so much for groupthink and it's worse than most things because usually there's a right and a left and, you know, they disagree.
	And then, you know, most foreign policy stuff, if you look at Fox News during the day, you look at MSNBC, there's not much difference.
	So I'm not surprised that there's groupthink.
	You know, there's a war going on, for example.
	There's, you know, atrocities on both sides and people point to the Russian ones.
	And, you know, of course, that's correct to do so.
	But there's Ukrainian across cities, too.
	And, you know, to their credit, like the New York Times will report on them.
	But, you know, it doesn't get nearly as much coverage or attention.
	And, you know, I'm impressed with sort of the intensity of it.
	I mean, the fact that people, you know, it's like people didn't care about Russia and Ukraine up to this point.
	And people like me were writing and other people were writing.
	And, you know, John Mersheimer, a lot of people have seen that famous video of him on YouTube, have been saying, look, we're going towards a disaster.
	We should really not be involved in this.
	We shouldn't be arming the Ukrainians.
	We shouldn't be holding out hope of joining NATO.
	We shouldn't be taking steps to bring them into NATO.
	And this stuff was just under the radar.
	They didn't care.
	They let the people in Washington, the Alexander Vindmans and these people like that basically do what they want.
	The Michael McFalls, you know, the crazy people have been running the Russia policy.
	And then it blows up and then people think, oh, all of a sudden, you know, they think the story just started today.
	You know, it's obviously a violation of international law, too.
	And Russia, obviously, invaded Ukraine.
	And that's, you know, important context, and we shouldn't forget that.
	But there's, you know, so much more going on here.
	And, you know, we just don't care.
	I mean, I've been talking to people on Twitter for a while about a lot of different controversies, a lot of subjects that have gotten right-wing people mad at me and I've gotten left-wing people mad at me.
	It's never been this intense, just sort of the hatred.
	I mean, some of it, I think, is, you know, Michael Tracy has talked about this.
	I think this is true, too.
	I think some of it might be, you know, contractors for intelligence agencies or something.
	I mean, there's somebody who just started their account in, like, end of March, and they were, you know, Just tweeting about nothing but me and they have zero followers and it's like a bunch of random letters.
	And like Michael Tracy has like retweeted some people going after him too.
	So some of it might be, you know, AstroTurf government stuff, but a lot of it, you know, are people that I know of before from before and they've got a little bit crazy too.
	So, you know, I've like sort of lost all hope that, you know, during a war, during wartime or, you know, it's not like it's even our war, but like even like, you know, just a war is going on that you can have rational discourse with people.
	I mean, I've become very pessimistic about that.
	I pulled up one of the tweets that you retweeted, Richard, which was the New York Times article.
	And I imagine just by virtue of you posting this or retweeting this, because it wasn't your tweet to begin with.
	I presume you get people calling you a Putin apologist or you get people calling you a Putin apologist or saying that's what you get for invading a foreign country?
	I mean, I stopped checking.
	I don't know.
	I stopped checking.
	I mean, eventually you realize it's stupid.
	You say what you think is important and what you need to say and you can't pay attention to the comments for that long because they're going to be stupid.
	I've heard them all before and they're probably going to say the same things.
	To what degree?
	I'm curious about how They're using social media to maximize hysteria.
	That this kind of like the first time to me where public policy used social media to create hysteria to then inflame public policy further in a particular direction was everything related to the pandemic set of policies.
	And now we're seeing it just in wartime.
	It's fascinating to see it with a war that 95% of Americans still can't point out Ukraine on a map if we did a globe-discrimination.
	I mean, the same people that were the mask lovers and the vaccine mandators and the lockdown supporters.
	They just quickly flip to the new thing.
	So this is the new thing, and all in mantra, and all chanting the same thing.
	All of a sudden, yesterday they were experts on public health.
	Today, they're experts on international realpolitik foreign policy in Russia and Ukraine.
	And the same hyper-moralism.
	I mean, very much moral panic kind of logic.
	It's the old saying about how the wisdom of crowds, when everybody's watching them, becomes the madness of crowds.
	And we're sort of seeing it in live time in the social media context and how it's inflaming and infusing public discourse.
	What was your take on all of this during the lockdown madness and the COVID policy madness?
	So, you know, when COVID started, you know, I thought something like lockdowns maybe made sense just because we didn't know a lot.
	So, you know, who knows, you know, this thing could have been, you know, really, you know, 10 times worse than it was.
	And so I thought it was sort of common sense that, you know, some kind of lockdown, some kind of social distancing, masking, that stuff would work.
	Now, what happened over time is, you know, we developed the vaccine.
	And then Philippe Lamoine for a CSPM organization basically did some data analysis and showed that It didn't matter whether you have lockdowns or you have mask mandates or not.
	You can look at, you know, different countries or you can look at different states within the United States.
	It just didn't predict anything.
	So it's like, okay, if this stuff helped, like, maybe we could have a debate.
	Maybe it does help, like, a little bit, but the effect is so small, you know, we can't even see it in the data.
	We have to, like, really try hard with the statistics.
	And so if it's that big of a deal, look, I mean, forcing someone to wear something, you know, Jared Paulus, the governor of Colorado, is a Democrat, one of the few good ones on this.
	This said a few weeks ago, you know, forcing someone to wear like a kind of dress or a kind of shirt is a huge infringement on liberty, right?
	And so to tell people you have to cover your face, I mean, we look at the Taliban doing that and we say, oh my God, you know, that's a big infringement.
	Nobody would say that's not a big deal.
	I mean, the fact that some people are saying masks are no big deal on Twitter is absolutely incredible to me.
	So yeah, after reading Philippe, I became very against mask mandates, very against lockdowns.
	And you're right.
	I mean, you know, the current thing meme, I mean, it's really, it's amazing.
	I mean, it's not that people aren't experts, which is fine.
	I mean, people, you know, I'm not an expert on all the things I talk about.
	You know, one of my things is being against, you know, expertise.
	It's about being just being able to smart and look at data and look at, you know, analyze things for yourself.
	As long as you do it well.
	It's the fact that they are so sort of hysterical and, you know, politically correct and so many people don't know anything.
	That's the problem.
	I mean, I think we've really seen, you look at like stuff like Wokeness and you think, okay, you try to explain it.
	Oh, these people, you know, they want, you know, they're whatever, they want to feel good about their identity and maybe there's something like that.
	But then you see them getting really excited about this COVID-19, you know, the pandemic and restricting.
	And then you're like, okay, what does this have to do with, you know, trans rights?
	You know, sometimes it's like, you know, the same people.
	And then you look at the war in Ukraine and suddenly, you know, they want to go to war.
	And, you know, there was one funny thing I saw.
	It was some protest, maybe at like an art museum in like New York or New York City or something like that, where there were all these artists calling for a no-fly zone in Ukraine.
	And they were wearing masks indoors.
	And they were like, their protest was to throw paper airplanes like down.
	You know, like, down a stair.
	You know, like, there's a staircase.
	And they're throwing airplanes.
	And I said they should teach this in a, you know, a class on, you know, statistical risk.
	These people are calling for World War III while they're wearing masks indoors.
	You know, after they've all, of course, been vaccinated in spring 2022.
	It's absolutely crazy.
	Like, what ideology explains it?
	No ideology explains it.
	Like, how you could, you know, be still worried about COVID if you're a young person who's been vaccinated.
	You know, this is over for you.
	You've got basically nothing to worry about.
	You're going to be...
	You're still scared of COVID, and you're so much so that you're going to cover your face.
	And at the same time, a world war is nothing to you.
	No ideology, I think, explains that.
	It's just people are trendy.
	They're following what's on the news, what's on the media, what sort of sounds good.
	I keep passing this house on the island where one day, literally, they have a physical flag coming out of the house.
	It was the Ukrainian flag for a little while.
	Then they replaced it with the trans flag.
	Then they replaced it with a flag that I couldn't identify.
	Then they replaced it with a flag that I couldn't identify again, but I Googled it just based on the colors, and it was the Ukrainian coat of arms.
	You have people changing their avatars, adding syringes, emojis into their avatars.
	It's peculiar, but just to see, you know, when people say masks are no big thing, this...
	Richard, I'm not sure if you heard about this story out of Canada.
	This is from...
	March 26, 2021, and I discovered this because a daycare professional came who I knew, you know, sobbing on my shoulder that they had been using these masks.
	And this is if they're potentially toxic.
	These are the ones that had graphene in them.
	Then you have even non-toxic in and of themselves if they're not washed properly, if they're used for too long, can have mold issues.
	So people say it's no big deal.
	Yeah, anyone who says that is ignorant to the fact that it could potentially be a big deal.
	Ideally, they're not, but the world is not ideal.
	May I ask how old you are?
	I am in my mid-30s.
	Okay, so you're old enough to have lived through a bit.
	You're old enough to have lived through social media.
	I don't recall social media being used to traumatize the general population into some form of submission or social conditioning.
	I think 2020 was the first time I saw it.
	Even with Trump when he was running, they used social media to generate some hatred or just to promote the anti-Trump narrative, maybe to promote the Russia collusion narrative.
	Have you in your life ever seen anything like what you've witnessed in terms of the social media influence on COVID policy under 2020 and similarly under Ukraine-Russia invasion now?
	Uh-oh.
	Am I frozen?
	No.
	Richard, can you hear me?
	Oh, I clicked on the comments thing.
	I clicked on learn more.
	Some destinations won't get comments.
	And I said, I want to know about that.
	But I learned more and I think it might have frozen me better.
	Okay, I'll look at it later.
	Do you believe that there's an orchestrated effort, I guess, is the question.
	Is there a concerted effort to use social media to influence the general population to support or condemn policy?
	You know, I think there are, you know, of course there are efforts on social media to push people in a certain direction.
	I mean, there's not...
	They're not hiding it.
	When they say, we want to get rid of disinformation, they basically have some things in mind, or they want to say, we want to get rid of Russian troll accounts or Russian media, things like that.
	So this stuff is pretty out in the open.
	I mean, the advocacy for censorship is pretty open.
	Is it something where like...
	You know, is it something where, like, they, you know, they sort of know ahead of time where they're going?
	You know, I tend to think not.
	I tend to think it's more, you know, emotionally driven, and you can sort of see this happen in real time.
	But, of course, there's, you know, there's efforts to, you know, change public opinion towards social media.
	Nobody hides that.
	Now, you wrote a book on grand strategy and who really controls foreign policy.
	Could you explain what the thesis of that book is, but also how it might apply to our current circumstances?
	And that someone like Putin years ago told Oliver Stone that he thinks all the present American presidents mean well, he says, but ultimately the guys in gray suits show up and they run the show.
	And how much is that accurate about American foreign policy?
	Yeah, I mean, so my book, Public Choice Theory and the Illusion of Grand Strategy, it has a pretty simple thesis.
	I mean, we tell a sort of story that, you know, the American president or whoever's running foreign policy basically has a strategy, wants to accomplish this, you know, wants to confront China or wants to win in the war on terror, you know, whatever it happens to be.
	And it really doesn't work like that.
	I mean, if you look at sort of the history of American foreign policy decision making, I mean, there's a couple of consistencies.
	I mean, it's basically, it's in the...
	The interest of certain groups.
	Groups that are good at organizing, who have a lot at stake in a policy outcome.
	So basically, you look at the generals, and pretty much all of them now are going to work for weapons manufacturers as soon as they're leaving government.
	You look at even when presidents want to do things, like when Obama, when he came into office, he was sort of skeptical about staying in Afghanistan, and the generals did basically a PR push to keep him there.
	Now, Biden learned from this.
	Biden was the one guy who told Obama, He probably shouldn't double down on Afghanistan.
	And he remembered, and then 10 years later, they basically tried to run the same trick on him.
	They did the same to Trump in the meantime between Obama and Biden.
	He wanted to get out of a lot of places, and they basically did whatever they could to stop him.
	And then Biden faced the same thing, although he actually did end up pulling out of Afghanistan.
	So if you look at something like Russia policy, I don't think...
	I think Biden, if he wanted, let's say if he wanted to have a peace deal, let's say he wanted to work it out.
	And I thought this before the invasion.
	I thought that maybe if it was just up to Biden, he would tell the Russians, look, Ukraine can be neutral.
	That was the Russian demand.
	Ukraine doesn't have to join NATO.
	There could be no foreign bases.
	I think Biden might have wanted to do something like that.
	There's no way to know for sure.
	But I think it was almost impossible for him to do that because he would get killed in the media.
	These people who run Russian policy, you know, again, Alex...
	Xander Vindman, Michael McFaul, you know, they're all on Twitter.
	They're all, you know, completely deranged.
	And, you know, they get listened to by MSNBC and the Washington Post and CNN.
	And the Republicans, too, are not blameless.
	You know, they always say, especially when the president's a Democrat, he's not being tough enough.
	And they all have their own weapons manufacturers and, you know, ex-generals in their corner.
	So I think if Biden did anything to try to make peace before the war, you know, I think they would have crucified him.
	And I think he would have been...
	They made it as painful as possible for him after he withdrew from Afghanistan.
	They would have done the same if he made a deal on Russia and Ukraine before the war.
	And now, I mean, now the emotion has just turned up a hundred times.
	So I don't think Biden has, you know, anything.
	I think Biden is just sort of irrelevant at this point.
	And, you know, how we get out of this, you know, I don't know.
	It's going to be interesting to see.
	And it's actually, you know, there's a risk of really bad things happening for that reason.
	Richard, I'm going to bring this chat up.
	And this is not to agree with you, but I know there's a lot of people who believe this.
	It's Israel, you know, foreign policy is determined by in the best interest of Israel.
	And my response to that is, it's not.
	My theory is that it's not.
	It's in the interest of the almighty dollar.
	Even America's support of Israel.
	I mean, it's nice when you give a country billions of dollars in aid under the condition that they buy the weaponry.
	From the country giving the aid, in which case it's not really aid, it's just a question of laundering tax dollars so that you can give the money away so that they spend it back on you with the corporate military interests that you have in mind.
	But in your book, and I was watching a few podcasts on your describing the book, where you say, you know, there's no coherent foreign policy and we should not expect it from our leaders.
	Whereas, you know, I might think, and I haven't read the book, ordinarily I would love to have listened to the book before the stream.
	My underlying theory would be there is an underlying coherency.
	It's making money for the military-industrial complex.
	Everything that the U.S. does in the wars that it supports, in financing and arming literally warring parties at the same time, it might seem incoherent from a policy and objective perspective, unless it's just from a profit perspective, in which case it all just makes sense.
	Even our dealings, or the U.S. dealings with Israel.
	Am I right or am I wrong?
	Am I smarter than I think?
	Or am I...
	Totally dumb.
	No, I think you came close to sort of nailing it.
	Yeah, I mean, if you wanted to find coherence in that way, yes.
	I mean, the book is trying to tell a coherent story about what's going on.
	And it's not just money.
	It is partly money.
	It's a lot of its money.
	But there's foreign governments who do.
	They have their own security interests and they want the United States to support them.
	Israel is unquestionably one of them.
	There are other countries too.
	And it's, you know, it's also not just money.
	It's also sort of status and feeling of importance.
	I think a lot of these people, they want power.
	I mean, you know, they want to make as much money as possible, but also, you know, they want to feel important and get on TV and get to feel like heroes and, you know, all that stuff, too.
	All that motivates human beings in the same way.
	There's bureaucracies that have their own interests.
	So, yeah, I think that, you know, I think self-interest of individuals and small groups is what drives America for policy.
	If you want to say that's, you know, that gives a coherence to it.
	Yeah, I would.
	Yeah, can you explain also what happens to dissidents in the sense that if you dissent from it, we'll see what ultimately happens with Colonel McGregor as an example, but you go back to someone like Scott Ritter, you know, 20 plus year military history, you know, part of UN inspection teams, challenges the narrative about what's happening in Iraq back with weapons of mass destruction.
	Put under massive microscopic criminal investigation multiple times.
	Shut out basically from the political narrative.
	Say the same kind of with Julian Assange in a different context.
	That those people who dissent...
	And that's the more severe consequences.
	For those that are less severe, you don't get the prime gigs.
	You don't get the media appearances.
	You don't get the book publishing deals.
	You don't get the public prominence that a lot of these people, as you note, seek.
	For some of the people, it's not about money.
	It's about public recognition, public fame, public celebration.
	Kind of like Obama going back to the White House and reminding Biden that he's just vice president.
	Some of these people are motivated more by ego than by money, but that those who dissent quickly find themselves on the outside looking in.
	Is that your take on American foreign policy political establishment?
	Yeah, that's true.
	I mean, what happened to Assange was, you know, Snowden, I mean, Snowden to the election, but Assange, I mean, is still, you know, still locked up.
	I mean, it's just really sad.
	You know, what he did was he released, you know, classified information.
	Guess what?
	You go read a New York Times article on foreign policy or Washington Post or Wall Street Journal.
	It's all based on classified information.
	It's they, you know, they say, according to government sources, blah, blah, blah.
	It's all, you know, it's often classified.
	And it's the stuff that the government wants you to hear and the media wants to report.
	So that's, you know, that's freedom.
	That's why there was concern in the Obama administration, even among some liberals, saying this is a freedom of speech thing.
	If you go after Assange, basically on the same standard, you have to go after what they consider real journalists, like people who report for the New York Times.
	So this is really a sad case.
	And then you're right, that's not what happens to most people.
	I mean, what happens to most people is basically you're shut out.
	They say you're crazy.
	They say you're discredited.
	They put it...
	It's changing a little bit.
	You see it on the Democratic side.
	You see the energy, even though the Democratic establishment is completely hawkish on foreign policy.
	You do see some of the far-left people who are maybe crazy in other ways are a little bit better on foreign policy.
	On the conservative side, you see the Trumpist movement, and Trump was a little bit all over the place with his foreign policy.
	There are people running to be a little bit more skeptical of American foreign intervention.
	So it does seem to be changing a little bit.
	I mean, on the right, I've been impressed by Tucker Carlson.
	I mean, the number one show in the country has been, I think, a voice of sanity through all this.
	And, you know, whether it's going to be, it's not reflected in Congress yet.
	I mean, the Republicans in Congress are almost uniformly awful.
	But, you know, maybe it's a lagging intake.
	Maybe what's happening on TV and what's happening on the internet and what's happening on shows like this will eventually, you know, change the politics.
	It often does.
	Why do you think that the political representational class is so disconnected from the people they represent?
	Like, there's a strong anti-intervention history in American politics that goes way back.
	But since World War II, that the people who represent them in the House and the Senate...
	Have overwhelmingly gone along with the defense industry mindset, the pro-war, pro-intervention mindset, almost without fail.
	Even when almost every time a political party gets associated with war, that party loses political power in the next election, it seems like most People on both sides haven't got the message, or are they just too intimidated by what the media will do?
	I talked to some high-profile candidates who were concerned with what they consider the defense industry's capability to cause problems in their elections, cause problems for them in even local news outlets and so forth.
	What do you attribute this gap between a lot of public...
	Lack of interest in these kind of military adventurism, and yet their so-called representatives, the Sean Hannity's of the world, in the Court of Public Opinion as an example, being so gung-ho.
	I mean, I don't think Sean Hannity's met a war he isn't willing to whore for.
	I mean, what about some of those?
	Why do you think that gap exists in our institutions of influence?
	Yeah, I mean, public opinion, you know, foreign policy tends to be, you know, all over the place.
	So that's why the, you know, it's very easy to change because people don't know anything about foreign affairs as a general matter.
	And so, you know, the people who shape the narrative tend to have a lot of control.
	You look at specifically on the Republican side, I mean, you know, it is interesting.
	I think the leaders in Congress are always a generation or two generations, probably maybe three generations sometimes behind.
	Where the intellectual energy is and where the discourse.
	So the conservative movement, you know, you have Buckley, you have Goldwater, Goldwater becomes a nominee.
	And then for a while, you have a lot of liberals still in the Republican Party.
	It took decades.
	And now there are, you know, basically now, if you look at measures of how people vote, the most liberal Republican is to the right of basically the most conservative Democrat, even like Mitt Romney.
	You hear about Ms. Romney doing this.
	Still like, you know, there used to be overlap.
	There used to be some Republicans who were like Democrats.
	And so that's gone.
	So on the foreign policy question, yeah, I mean, they're basically still, you know, Ronald Reagan and then George W. Bush.
	I mean, we're still living in that sort of intellectual reality for the people who are in office.
	You know, maybe they'll keep power.
	I don't know.
	But it just seems like the intellectual energy is going to a different place.
	It just takes a while to sort of have that generational turnover.
	Robert and Richard, I'm going to do something which might...
	I don't want to put anyone on edge or surprise me.
	I'm going to bring up a chat because I don't want to pretend...
	I've seen it.
	I can't ignore it.
	The Jewish diaspora is overrepresented in dictating ideological trajectory of our foreign policy, including against Russia, Ann Applebaum, Victoria Nuland.
	Didn't know Victoria Nuland.
	George Soros, I knew that.
	New York Times, etc.
	Now, I'm going to ask both of you this question because it's a question that comes up.
	And, you know...
	There is statistical over-representation in a number of fields, one of which is indisputably foreign policy.
	There may be a number of explanations for why that's the case, but how would you...
	And I will not take offense, by the way.
	Just so everybody knows, I'm a member of that community.
	I've noticed the similar over-representation during the impeachment, when people were referring to it as a...
	A certain type of coup that rhymed with coup, given all of the players who were of a certain demographic that's overrepresented in the impeachment.
	You have to live through that.
	You can't deny it.
	Gentlemen, who do I start?
	I'll start with Richard.
	No, I'll start with Robert, just so that we won't put the guest too much unat ease.
	Robert, how would you respond to this type of observation?
	The core flaw with all of it is there's no...
	Jewish identity that's of consequence to it.
	That's the problem.
	That's like saying disproportionate white power, right?
	I mean, it presumes that something about that identity has ideological consequence.
	It doesn't.
	That's the whole flaw in all of it.
	So does anyone think that Bill Kristol's politics is because he's Jewish?
	I mean, that's the problem with this.
	On the left, I mean, they're overwhelmingly anti-Israel, for example.
	I mean, is Israel supposed to be?
	I mean, that's where it's a parochial obsession.
	And the other is problem number one.
	It has no explanatory power.
	Problem number one.
	Problem number two is it borrows from a bunch of racial hysteria and propaganda that goes back centuries.
	That's just patently false.
	I mean, people are thinking they're genius by repeating Nazi mythology.
	And so that's where it's like, it doesn't have any utility.
	Like, for example, why focus on, say, the Rothschilds as opposed to the Rockefellers?
	The Rockefellers have more power these days, by the way, in terms of their legacy institutions than the Rothschilds do.
	But because they want to be obsessed somehow with someone's Jewish identity.
	Which tells me more about the person speaking it than any actual useful information.
	I mean, George Soros, you know, quite bragged about his collusion at various levels, or put it this way, had no guilt about his collusion with the Nazis in Hungary, and just recently said he remembered how fondly it was when they were holding it against the Reds in 1944.
	He was talking about the Nazis who were holding it.
	So it's like none of that has, in my view, any utility beyond borrowing from old anti-Semitic tropes because it doesn't explain things.
	If you were describing, say, a group of Orthodox Jews that had a very unique view, equivalent to, say, Islamo-fascists do about the future of the world, then it might have explanatory power.
	But none of these people are Orthodox.
	None of these people are even religious for the most part.
	So it serves no utility at all.
	It just says, hey, I'm prejudiced.
	And I believe in dumb conspiracy theories that don't explain things.
	Richard, might you have anything to add to that?
	Yeah, I mean, it's usually better to focus on, you know, sort of people whose ideas are wrong and, you know, understanding why they're wrong.
	You know, you can point to the backgrounds of certain people involved in American foreign policy.
	You can also talk about, you know, Israel not wanting to be too hawkish towards Russia and taking a more sort of, taking a sort of less aggressive approach than Europe and a lot of places.
	So, you know, in general, I think that that's, you know, that's a better approach.
	It's sort of like the credential things we were talking about.
	Well, if somebody agrees with you, you know, they say, you know, they say, oh, that person has credentials, you know, that means something.
	And if they don't, you say it doesn't mean something.
	Well, you know, people who dislike a certain ethnic group, they will say, well, that ethnic group doesn't agree with me in this case, so they must be doing something bad.
	And they'll ignore often the people, a lot of people on their side will, you know, also be of the same ethnic group, right?
	So, you know, I don't think people should be denounced for pointing out, you know, disproportionate numbers of people believing in one thing.
	Sometimes it's interesting to explain why and to understand why.
	But I don't think that that should be sort of guiding your worldview.
	you.
	You mentioned the problem with credentialism as a methodology that our society, I see it as self-justification of the managerial class for why they should have power.
	They got this degree, they got these number of letters after their name, whatever.
	And to me, That credentialism is a problem and a hindrance for good policymaking, not an aid and a help.
	I mostly agree with Buckley that he would rather be governed by any random person out of the phone book than a group of people at Harvard or Yale.
	The best and the brightest got us into Vietnam, quite famously.
	To what do you attribute this sort of credentialism that celebrates that because you have this particular degree from this particular university, which really means in my view you've been indoctrinated and acculturated more often than not, more than it means...
	You have real-world experience.
	More than it means you have cognitive capabilities.
	More than it means you'll actually be good at doing whatever task it is that you're assigned to.
	I mean, I attribute it as self-justification for a certain group of people to hold power over the rest of us.
	But to what do you ascribe how credentialism has come to serve a particular gatekeeping role in who is respected and who isn't?
	Yeah, I mean, I think a lot of times, I mean, it's become a way for, you know, people who aren't very smart to feel like they're smart.
	And a lot of these, you know, degrees and these programs, they're often, you know, they're not very actually cognitively challenging.
	So I remember the controversy over Jill Biden and whether we should call her Dr. Jill Biden.
	So, you know, I think Tucker and some other people dug up her PhD.
	It's a joke.
	I mean, it's a joke.
	You or I could do it, you know, in an afternoon, you know, 90% of the public could write, you know, something.
	But no, she's Dr. Jill Biden.
	You give her that honor.
	I think a lot of people are sort of in that position.
	They want to feel like they're smart.
	They want to feel like important.
	Most people are just average, and it's better if your average capability is to admit that you're average instead of trying to get a credential and then calling yourself a doctor and thinking that you're better than other people.
	So yeah, I think there's something here that makes people feel good.
	It's egalitarian.
	It's like nobody's naturally smarter than others.
	If you just go to the right school or go to any school, you just get a PhD, then people should listen to you.
	I'm a big fan of, and I wrote about this on my sub-stack of an article called Tedlock of the Taliban and then a follow-up in an op-ed for the New York Times.
	I'm a big fan of things like betting markets instead of just people who go to the...
	You know, the most selective schools or get the highest level degree, people should, you know, go on the record and say, I think this probability of this, and I'm going to put this money on that.
	And then you can, you know, this is what Phil Tutlock has done.
	This is the kind of research he's done.
	And you can see, you know, who's smart, who's smarter after a while, who actually, you know, not necessarily who's smarter, who has, you know, the...
	The right skill set to actually understand something about the world and can tell you something that will actually learn.
	Okay, if this person tells me this, it means that's a better chance that it's happening rather than this is a person who's just skating by on credentials or just making things up to sound smart.
	We have a lot of that.
	So yeah, I've always encouraged betting markets, other ways that basically get us a better elite because what we're doing right now is not working.
	Richard, I'm going to ask one question which I think will take, I don't want to keep you longer than you have to stay, and it might dovetail into a continued discussion with Robert.
	Your take on Russia-Ukraine war, I heard you talk about it on other podcasts, and I want to flesh out what you said there here.
	People analogizing Putin's, let's just call it geopolitical aspirations, to those of Hitler.
	And people say, you know, Hitler started with Poland, and then Poland was just the gateway invasion to global dominance.
	What is your take on that argument, that analogy, viewing Putin and the Russian invasion of Ukraine to the Nazi invasion of Poland and the rest of Europe?
	Yay or nay, does it hold water or doesn't it, and why?
	People, people in Hitler, I mean, it's like Hitler is like the only thing that they, you know, that they've heard about.
	You'd think they would, you know, at least be a little original and try to think of a different historical analogy.
	But no, Hitler was unique.
	That's why he's Hitler.
	That's why we talk about Hitler, because he's Hitler.
	There's not many, there's not many Hitlers.
	Putin is certainly not Hitler.
	Putin, if he's Hitler, he waited for a long time to start to do a, you know, to start actually trying to take over Ukraine.
	Hitler, within a few years of coming to power, had, you know, invaded several countries.
	The Russian, you know, incursions have been.
	They've usually been in response to some geopolitical situation.
	They haven't been in a completely manufactured crisis.
	And, you know, there's no indication that, you know...
	Putin wants to militarily conquer Europe.
	He really cared about Ukraine.
	We never tested the theory of whether we would have agreed to free Ukrainian neutrality if that would have stopped the war.
	I believe it probably would have.
	But no, this is just a way to sort of shut down debate and get people to think, okay, you're on the side of Hitler now.
	This is the one historical example we all know.
	All you can do when you hear about Hitler is not negotiate, not think about things rationally, just fight Hitler until the better end.
	And that's what people are trying to do.
	But how do you respond to the argument then that when people say this is like Hitler, he wants Ukraine, then he wants Poland, then he wants Europe, then he wants the world?
	I mean, as a matter of fact response, what would be the argument to say, okay, he'll be satisfied with in the same way Chamberlain said Hitler will be satisfied with Poland to counter that argument?
	I mean, because there's no reason to think so.
	But if you could look at, you know, capabilities, you know, I think capabilities are more important than intentions because intentions are harder to prove.
	Well, capabilities, you can see.
	Look how hard it is to invade Ukraine, right?
	A lot of these countries, I mean, would be much more difficult.
	So, you know, Ukraine, you look at something like Poland, much wealthier.
	Germany, much wealthier, more technologically advanced.
	The supply lines of Russia have been sprayed in Ukraine.
	It would be much harder than any other country that they tried.
	Maybe the Baltics, which, you know, would probably be relatively easy to conquer.
	But, you know, that's the theoretical limit.
	I mean, the invasion of Poland, the invasion of Germany, the rest of the world.
	I mean, no, you know, I think we've proven, conquering Ukraine is hard enough.
	That'll occupy, if Putin wants to conquer all of Ukraine, that will, he's 70 years old, that will occupy him for the rest of his life.
	He'll never, you know, he'll never finish that to get to everywhere else.
	Yeah, they have to use the Hitler analogy because all the other war analogies fail, right?
	They can't talk about World War I because that was a screw-up.
	They can't talk about the Korean War because that was a screw-up.
	Can't talk about the Vietnam War because that was a screw-up.
	Can't talk about Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria because all those were screw-ups.
	Can't talk about Serbia, Sudan, or Somalia because those were all screw-ups.
	So they're always going to compare everything as Freedom Tunes wonderfully did in one of their comic memes.
	Everybody is Hitler and everything is World War II because all the other wars failed.
	They told you everything else was there.
	That's the only thing they know.
	They only know that because that's what people have been told because, oh, that's very useful.
	That's what the military-industrial complex and that's what American foreign policy, that's what it wants.
	It wants to treat everyone like Hitler.
	You never have to be self-reflective.
	You would never have to negotiate with anyone.
	Look, everyone's Hitler.
	What else do you need to know?
	As we break off the last question, can you give everybody where they can find your substack and where they can find you on social media?
	So yeah, it's very simple.
	My name is my Substack, so richardhanania.substack.com.
	Twitter, they're under my own name, Richard Hanania.
	There's my organization, CSPI.
	We have a Substack, too.
	It's called cspi.center.
	cspi.substack.com.
	I haven't actually checked this.
	Hold on.
	Richard, actually.
	I have to ask one question.
	Otherwise, the chat might think I'm avoiding it on purpose.
	I'm told to ask what you think of Victoria Nuland.
	I never knew...
	Let me just finish.
	Okay, that's the last thing I have to plug.
	Go ahead.
	By the way, I'm going to post all of these links in the pinned comments so everyone can find it when this video gets published by YouTube.
	What do you think of Nuland?
	I had no idea.
	I didn't know that she was Jewish, by the way.
	Just throwing that out there.
	I don't know if she is, but someone said that she is.
	What do you think of Nuland?
	As an individual, as a policymaker, as a player in this theater of international conflict.
	I'm, you know, I'm generally against Victoria Newland.
	I mean, I think if people are interested, they can look up, you know, her role in the 2014 Maidan protests.
	And basically, you know, there was some indications, you know, she had a heavy role to play in basically selecting the next leaders for Ukraine.
	I mean, Victoria Newland, I mean, it's a long story, but the 2014 crisis in Ukraine goes a long way to explaining how they got here.
	And yes, you know, she's still around doing her thing.
	All right.
	Awesome.
	Richard, thank you very much.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes later.
	Right now, I'll stay on with Robert, and we're going to continue talking, whatever comes in through the chat.
	Richard, thank you very much, and all your links will be up in the pinned comments so people can find you.
	Thanks, guys.
	Bye.
	All right.
	Have a good night.
	Oh!
	Sorry, Robert.
	I didn't mean to take you out.
	Robert, okay.
	Very interesting.
	I'm going to go double-check a fact about Victoria Nuland.
	Didn't know?
	Irrelevant.
	It's an interesting point you bring up.
	And it's a response I will use.
	My typical response when people say there's Jewish overrepresentation in politics, in Hollywood, in this and that, I say, yeah.
	And there's also overrepresentation on the exact opposite spectrum.
	So you have overrepresentation in politics for things that people think are bad.
	Then you have overrepresentation in things like social good, if there is such a thing.
	You might have over-representation in Hollywood degeneracy.
	That might just be the demographics of Hollywood.
	But you also have over-representation in other things that are good.
	And the truth is, it's a good point.
	It's never about the religious aspect in and of itself.
	There might be other reasons to explain why.
	I mean, if the people want to point out that disproportionately intelligentsia in the West has had above average Jewish representation, that's no surprise because the Jewish religious tradition taught reading and writing when large parts of Europe and the rest of the world were illiterate.
	So it turns out, you know, teaching research and writing gives you an edge when the world turns to profession.
	But that's about all.
	Beyond that, it has no explanatory power whatsoever.
	It has no predictive...
	George Soros is anti-Israel.
	It doesn't serve anything.
	It's just people who think they've discovered something unique and they've figured out the world when all they're doing is repeating the tropes of the Inquisition era.
	These people are embarrassing themselves and undermining other good arguments.
	Because of these anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, the media can hide the true globalist conspiratorial agenda of someone like George Soros because people make up stupid stuff about Jewish people.
	Because that doesn't explain Bill Gates, doesn't explain Rockefeller, doesn't explain George Soros.
	But they get to hide behind it.
	So they're doing the bidding of globalist conspirators by promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
	I have no respect for people who espouse them.
	None.
	When I see that, I think you're an idiot, you're an imbecile, and you're undermining the cause that you claim to support.
	And I, Robert, I'll take it from the other side.
	I, as a member of the community, anecdote.
	I was once at a casino with my father.
	I believe it might have been Turning Stone.
	There was a religious Hasidic guy gambling and was inebriated and not behaving properly.
	Is that allowed?
	I don't know.
	I don't know and I don't care.
	I don't judge for that.
	All I know is he was behaving in a way that was...
	You just outed him on national TV.
	No, not my dad.
	And my dad said to me, in a way that was loud enough, it was deliberate.
	He said, we represent 5,000 years of history.
	Loud enough for the person to hear.
	And, you know, look, from my own personal perspective, When you are a member of an ethnic, religious, whatever minority, and there is over-representation for whatever the reason, if I'm looking like, you know, the Weinsteins, the Fogels, the Polanskys, and you can drop names quickly, I get embarrassed every time it happens because it does reflect poorly on the community as a whole.
	Whether or not anything of that behavior is intrinsic to any of the underlying core religious principles, that's where you make your connection and you don't.
	I don't make that connection, but I do sometimes uncomfortably notice.
	Certain over-representation.
	And I think we all represent a community that we are part of, like it or not.
	Yeah, but I don't see it that way.
	It's like some evangelical does something stupid.
	That reflects that individual.
	If it's about something of their belief structure.
	So, for example, for what I call Islamofascism, it's been labeled that actually for more than a century by people who study the topic.
	There, it's relevant because it's a political permission slip for psychopaths and sociopaths to do horrible things, and their religious beliefs are the basis of their political action and the basis for their permission slip to do evil.
	So there, their religious tenets are relevant to their agenda to a degree that you can explain what they have done and often predict what they will do.
	A great example is kind of Hitler.
	And that one of the reasons why they've repressed in history, some of it's the strong, dominant presence of Marxists in history, particularly the history profession, but it's also because the West needed a narration for all the later future military interventions of pointing to Hitler.
	The problem is, if they explained to people who Hitler was, or even understood him at the time, they would not be able to analyze, analogize anybody to Hitler.
	Because Hitler had a very unique belief structure.
	First of all, he wasn't a nationalist.
	Almost all European academies now, and a lot of ordinary, everyday Europeans now think nationalism equals Nazism.
	They were never nationalists.
	Nationalists don't go invading the whole world.
	The whole point is the nation-state not being imperialist.
	Nationalism versus...
	Imperialism.
	Nationalism versus internationalism.
	Hitler wasn't a nationalist.
	Hitler was a racial imperialist.
	Not only that, he was a racial socialist.
	He wasn't a capitalist.
	He wasn't on the economic right side of the aisle.
	He was a pure statist.
	That's what a fascist is.
	But he believed in shrinking markets.
	The reason why he had to invade all those places, you could both explain it in the past but also predict it in the future if you just read his books.
	Is he believed in a very common Marxist theory, which was, I mean, Marx himself was, he was wrong about almost every prediction the man ever made.
	I mean, it's like, whatever you think about Marxism as an analytical tool, Marxism as a predictive tool was awful, just awful.
	One of the things he predicted was that capitalism would destroy itself.
	Oops, wrong.
	But part of it was because of the shrinking markets theory.
	That what would happen is, as the agrarian nations and resource nations, Industrialized, that they would in turn replace the other industrial nations, and the existing industrial nations could not get food or fuel.
	This is why Hitler had to invade.
	There's a guy, TIK History, that explains this in great detail, sources it, and cites his sources in this publication.
	But if the world knows that, if we're taught that in school, then we're never going to see Putin, Hussein, or anybody as Hitler.
	Unless they also happen to believe in racial imperialism and also happen to believe in shrinking markets.
	But because that exposed a weakness of Marxism as well, they weren't going to articulate that basis.
	Instead, he had to be crazy.
	He had to be a madman.
	He had to be a nationalist.
	He had to be someone who was driven by just aggression for its own sake.
	Then they could analogize future people to Hitler by denying people to Hitler.
	The true history of Hitler.
	We have allowed these analogies to take place that are just patently absurd if you know our history.
	I'm going to bring this one up.
	Now, Viva kicked my dog.
	I don't know if that's a Jerky Boys reference.
	And if anybody knows the Jerky Boys, you'll get that reference.
	But this one, Robert.
	Jewish people have a strong ideological motive to support Karl Popper's open society and liberal interventionism due to their experiences in World War II.
	Not a value judgment, just facts.
	I mean, I think I know how...
	It's just not true.
	It's not being Jewish.
	So if the theory is the experience of the Holocaust has shaped Jewish political perspectives globally, for example, in the United States, two-thirds of the three-quarters of Jewish voters vote against the party that's, votes for the party that tends to be more anti-Israel.
	How do you explain that?
	How do you explain Israel's politics?
	Is Israel liberal interventionism?
	There isn't a consistent thesis behind any of these explanations.
	Does anyone really think Bill Kristol is motivated by the Holocaust?
	Bill Kristol is motivated by power and by a view that a small group of people, the Atlanticist world, should be in power.
	It's not at all a liberal interventionism.
	So the Democrats have been much more successful at liberal interventionism, but Also, that interventionist spirit predated the Holocaust, and it didn't disproportionately represent Jewish people, who are, what, 2-3% of the total voting population in the United States?
	And when people say there's disproportionate Jewish representation, is it 50%?
	Is it 70%?
	Is it 80%?
	No.
	That's like when I hear arguments about someone being white, someone being male.
	It's like, well, tell me how that explains their worldview.
	Tell me how that predicts what they're going to do.
	That's what his point was about betting markets, which obviously I like as a tool.
	And it's because look at those people who give you good explanations that make sense when you dig into it and analyze it, but also look at those people who preview things effectively.
	And telling me that someone is Jewish previews absolutely nothing about what they're going to do.
	So that's the problem.
	It has no explanatory value.
	It has no predictive value.
	So it means nothing.
	If you tell me someone is Islamic, that doesn't even necessarily mean something unless it's combined with a different, unique set of belief structures.
	So, you know, Indonesia isn't out trying to raise an Islamo-fascist army to invade parts of the world.
	So the fact that it's heavily Islamic means nothing.
	So you need to know...
	The context and more information.
	As a whole, it just tends to be a cheap substitute by people who think they've discovered something they haven't.
	I'm going to bring this one up because it reminds me of one of the older funny jokes that I remember from Blanche Knot's Dirty Jokes.
	A joke a libertarian comedian made some years ago.
	Some discrimination is okay.
	For example, there was a chain of store named The Thrifty Scotsman.
	But you'll never see a chain of stores called The Frugal Jew.
	Funny joke, look up how copper wire was invented.
	It involves both of those parties, people.
	Robert, do you know the joke?
	That joke?
	No.
	It was a Jewish...
	How was copper wire invented?
	A Jew and a Scotsman fighting over a penny.
	Because I had never known, by the way.
	Look, I grew up with one stereotype.
	No, it's Scotsman or frugal?
	Well, I never knew that there's a stereotype of Scotsman being frugal.
	I have a best friend...
	I didn't know most of these stereotypes.
	As a kid, I knew none of them.
	The only thing I thought...
	I mean, I remember asking a friend of mine who told me she was Catholic.
	I was like, is that Christian?
	Because that's how Baptist I've grown up.
	And she laughed so hard she almost drove the car off the side of the road.
	But otherwise, I didn't know it.
	I mean, I had a professor at Yale, professor of populism, who's Jewish, and his wife had experienced a lot of anti-Semitism in some small towns.
	But it was like when they did the whole, they thought Trump was trying to submit an anti-Semitic trope by retweeting a meme.
	That, to me, looked like a sheriff star, a five-pointed star, not a six-pointed star.
	But there were a bunch of people, including good friends of mine who are Jewish, who thought for sure it was anti-Semitic.
	It was like, here's the thing.
	If you ask people what the Star of David is in ordinary middle America, two-thirds aren't going to be able to draw it for you.
	As I understand within the Jewish world, it's very significant, symbolically significant.
	But 90% of Americans don't interact with a lot of people of Jewish faith.
	So most of them don't know what that means.
	So there was this belief that there was this deep anti-Semitic undercurrent.
	I'm like, you're projecting things that just aren't there.
	Most of these people have no idea what that even is supposed to symbolize, even if that was the intention of the original author.
	But the other thing that's undermined, so the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories has undermined, not helped, exposing that there really is a global elite of people who believe they should govern the world.
	And will manipulate politics and culture and economics to achieve it.
	In the same sense, the left, the anti-war movement, if we get Aaron Maté on or Michael Tracy, maybe some other people on, in my view, the anti-war movement being co-opted by the left, particularly the sort of...
	Marxist sympathetic left in the 1960s did extreme political damage to the anti-war movement in America that had traditionally been a deeply American patriotic principle to be anti-war.
	Instead, it became associated with snobby college kids who spit on soldiers.
	It became associated with people who burned the flag.
	It became associated with people who were anti-American.
	And that's not the history of being anti-war.
	To be anti-war is to be deeply American.
	That is our deepest, strongest tradition of our founding fathers.
	But it got bastard.
	In my view, the anti-war left did the bidding of the pro-war community, of the pro-war defense industry in this country.
	Whether that was deliberate or not might be a future subject for a hush-hush at feverbarneslaw.locals.com.
	I'm trying to find that Justin joke because, look, it's...
	It was a very funny joke.
	It took me some time to get.
	A Scotsman dropped a pound coin and it hit him on the back of the head.
	It took a long time to get.
	I don't know all the ethnic jokes.
	It was an interesting thing.
	When I was in Eastern Europe...
	I mean, one thing with Eastern Europe is, like, they're trying to explain this recently.
	They're basically discouraging people who are not white from volunteering for any Ukrainian support.
	Because they were trying to explain why they're going to experience how much racism they'll experience.
	They're like, they have this guy, they're like, by the way, okay, if you're African American and you go over there, expect to be called things like monkey and da-da-da.
	These are the real progressive Ukrainian aspects.
	But also it's true in large parts of Eastern Europe, Russia too, because of lack of experience.
	In other words, to them, black, brown is really foreign.
	So I would get the weirdest questions from people.
	Like, oh, you're from the American South.
	And then they would ask something that was kind of racist, but they didn't mean it malevolently.
	They meant it as just a group they don't understand, they haven't been around, they haven't associated with, that sort of thing.
	I mean, a large part to the African American community, honestly, have some of the most racist comments I've ever heard.
	But that's what it's like when people say, racism is not a monopoly of any group.
	Well, it is only when you define it as discrimination plus power.
	Well, even then, someone can have power.
	I mean, if a black man kills an Asian woman out of racism, he had power over her if he killed her, right?
	So, I mean, they define it as institutional power, and then they have to even limit that to basically being, you know, they're conveniently defining it in such a way that it...
	Defies common sense.
	Now, you can have institutional racism, and that might mean something different, that you have to have power.
	But even there, there's the capacity to enforce it in a wide range of populations in any group.
	And then there's a difference between racism that's malevolent and racism that's just based on stereotypes, lack of understanding, lack of experience.
	I find that only about 10% of people who have racist views are malevolent racist.
	90% of them just believe in stereotypes, caricatures.
	I mean, heck, Woody Allen has made how many movies based on caricaturing the Jewish community?
	And one anecdote, when I lived in Quebec City and I made friends with someone who I'm driving home one day, and speaking with this person, talking about Quebec City, and the person says, you know, Quebec's a nice place because, you know, it doesn't have any Jews.
	And I was like, this individual...
	It meant it so not maliciously that this person did not even recognize that I probably was a boy named David from Westbound driving his dad's car.
	Oh, David, you're right.
	That's like Alexander with Greeks.
	That's Alexander with...
	It's like when Alex and Alexander were like, oh, we're both from Greece.
	I was like, of course you're named Alexander.
	Now, Robert, I love it.
	Bless your innocent soul.
	I read Blanche Knott's Dirty Jokes, book one to book five, and I needed to get explanations for my parents.
	Not that they knew, but people knew.
	You have the dirty jokes.
	But this person was so naive.
	So innocent in what they've heard and repeated, we stayed friends.
	We became friends.
	It was nothing earth-shattering.
	But I'm going to bring this up.
	And I don't know if this is true, but I can't verify, but I'm going to read it, and thank you for the chat.
	Viva Chirup, I am black, I am Nigerian, I am LGBT.
	No, I think I'm Igbo.
	He's part of the Igbo tribe of Nigeria.
	A lot of great wrestling tradition, a lot of great athletes come from that culture, I think because of their early wrestling culture.
	Well, that goes to show my social conditioning is I see LGB and then I assume...
	Oh, right, right, because of how much...
	Yeah, no, that's an I. Talk about a negative representation.
	We have our fair share.
	And no one is guilty.
	And because of some unique success of some great athletes from some of those regions, that's where some of the stereotypes...
	It's like Samoan culture.
	Samoan culture, early on, one way to survive, it sort of celebrated a certain style of wrestling culture.
	Thus, that part of the population genetically advanced in the sense of reproduced at a higher rate.
	And so you have a Samoan culture that's...
	Great offensive lineman or defensive lineman in football.
	Disproportionately, you'll find Samoans, but it's become that long history, in my view, of wrestling culture.
	But it will usually be a cultural phenomenon.
	Not necessarily a genetic phenomenon, quote-unquote.
	But yeah, people's obsessed with these.
	And then they think they found something genius is what drives me crazy.
	When someone repeats a 16th century English royalty lie or European royalty lie, like a lot of the anti-Semitic tropes, and they think they've rediscovered something new and genius about the way the world works.
	It's like, no.
	You're one of the suckers.
	You're one of the saps.
	You're not one of the true believers.
	I'm going to just point one thing out.
	I know people have seen it.
	I actually found a cup that says, I turtley love you.
	Totally random.
	And people just...
	Where did that arrive?
	Where did that come from?
	That turtles thing?
	It's an old meme.
	I like turtles.
	It was a kid who did an interview and then I just threw it into everything.
	Oh, so it is based on that kid who said, I like turtles?
	I like turtles.
	And that was the poll.
	That was the kid that looked like a zombie, didn't he?
	It was back when the internet was pure, Robert.
	And people should recognize a sip.
	I know exactly how much went into that cup.
	Robert, I was in the chat yesterday during your amazing Bourbon with Barnes, and I had my question because I did a daytime stream, and I feel like I'm misunderstanding something.
	When I say I doubt everything that's going on in the Ukraine, that's going on in Russia, that's going on in the world, and I read the respective explanations for Phenomenal.
	And then I decide whose explanation makes more sense, whose I have less problems with.
	I have heard your position, and I respect it, and I think it makes a lot of sense in terms of the prospect of a false flag in Bucha.
	When I read the Russian response, and I presume it is in fact a legitimate blue checkmark telegram Russian military response, where when they make certain affirmations which go beyond what would otherwise be normally plausible.
	Which goes a little bit too much into the hyper-aggression part.
	We didn't do anything wrong.
	We are 1000% innocent.
	This is all aggression.
	When I read their response, I say, okay, now I'm not so sure.
	And I mean, what has been the latest in the determination?
	A number of people said, Viva, you're wrong.
	The UN is not investigating this.
	It's, I don't know, a subgroup that doesn't have any authority.
	The first question is, you read Russia's response, and how do you not get a little skeptical, a little cynical?
	When they basically say, we're in war, we've invaded another country, but there has not been one act of aggression against any civilian in Bukha.
	We were delivering hundreds of tons of first, not first aid, but rather, what's the word I'm looking for?
	Humanitarian aid.
	And this is all an act of aggression from Ukraine.
	Do you not get certain red flags as a litigator, as a cross-examiner, from the position as expressed?
	I mean, it's the over-the-top reaction that you get from states and governments, which always tends to be absolutist when absolutist positions are rarely the best practical positions to hold given how evidence would develop.
	But what I predicted on Sunday turned out true.
	So, you know, that's one of the key giveaways to any false flag event is look at whether...
	All the parties involved want an independent investigation by a mutually respected third party and how quickly they want that investigation done.
	And if people are suspect, I mean, like in the, remember, the main example in the United States, which was the subject of today's hush-hush at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, is one of the giveaways was that the U.S. didn't want any independent inquiry.
	And it wasn't because they knew that the Spanish had not done it.
	It was just because they had strong suspicions the investigation wouldn't go that direction.
	And their fears of that led them to not allow an independent inquiry, which ultimately undermined the justification for the war in the world of...
	Public opinion internationally, but not domestically, or not consistently.
	Huey Long was very opposed to the Spanish-American War and spoke against it later on when he came to power.
	He wasn't in power in the 1890s.
	But that's what happened.
	The Russians asked for it right away.
	The UK was the head of the UN Security Council at that point.
	They were the nominal president to rotating presidencies.
	Refused to hold a meeting on Monday.
	And then on Tuesday, the meeting they did hold, they didn't authorize a UN investigation to be done.
	Instead, it was all about kicking Russia out of the United Nations.
	Part of it was kicking him out for now out of a Human Rights Council, but Zelensky said, I demand you, I mean, he's just literally reading off of the latest script from the West, but I demand Russia be kicked out of the United Nations, or you just destroy, or just get rid of your United Nations anyway.
	Folks, if all of the countries aren't in the United Nations, the United Nations is already dead.
	It's only purpose.
	If it's just another EU extended organization, who cares?
	Now, for one, I could care less if the UN disappeared tomorrow.
	But they still did not authorize a UN-based third-party independent investigation, and they refused to hold a Security Council-specific meeting on the allegations.
	They're going to investigate things in general, but it's going to be the EU, not the UN.
	Okay, so did I misunderstand, or did I misread, or was it not clear in the article that I read?
	I thought it was the UN Commission, a U.S. committee, and they had a year to do it, and they were going to appoint three or a group to do it.
	I mean, I want to pull up the article that I wrote from, but I don't.
	Yeah, my understanding is they did not authorize an independent investigative team to go on it right now, unless...
	Unless they change that.
	That was the last I knew.
	Last I knew was they had not authorized that to occur.
	And, I mean, what's the rationale?
	I don't want to play devil.
	I mean, I'm going to play devil's advocate, I guess, one way or the other.
	How do you rationalize making a move to kick Russia out for human rights violations, but not China?
	Like, how do you get your head on that?
	Well, we're not ourselves.
	I mean, number one violators of military interventions of UN protocol for the last 60 years has been the United States of America.
	So, I mean, that's why it's ludicrous.
	But it shows you their mindset.
	The mindset of this group of people is that all the institutions should be controlled by them.
	If anybody is a problem or hindrance, they should be excluded.
	I mean, Germany is about to kill its own economy in the name of this.
	These are globalist leaders.
	This is a George Soros, Klaus Schwab, Rockefeller.
	Bill Gates kind of agenda.
	It's not in the United States' interest.
	It's not in Germany's interest.
	Not in France's interest.
	Macron might find that out the hard way if Le Pen ends up beating him.
	Le Pen is now at a higher rate in public polling than she has ever been in a runoff race.
	The runoff race is right now 51-49.
	This was a race that was 62-37 just a month or so ago.
	And why do people think that is?
	Massive strikes today in Greece.
	The whole public transit system shut down while their politicians are capitulating to Victoria Nuland's latest visit.
	Victoria Nuland, by the way, for the background, she was Dick Cheney's key assistant for the first Iraq war.
	And then Obama put her in charge.
	She was key to hiring, getting Christopher Steele hired to promote Russiagate.
	While she was working at the State Department, she was handling all those relationships.
	She was part of the Maidan coup.
	She's part of orchestrating things now.
	And basically, she's just a globalist.
	She's connected to the Jordan Peterson, I think, interviewed her brother-in-law, if I recall right.
	But she's part of the whole family that is just huge.
	Huge warmongers.
	And so you're seeing that sort of, that's who she is.
	But people focus on her when I say she's the symbol of the problem.
	She's a symptom of the problem.
	She's a representative of it.
	But she's by no means its orchestrator.
	She doesn't have enough power to do this by herself.
	This is because key people...
	Like the George Soros of the world, want her in that position of power.
	The Rockefellers and the rest, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, obviously the European Union.
	All of these are globalist institutions that could care less about their local populations, at least of all Ukrainians.
	But they're going to destroy their whole system overnight.
	But the irony of escalating against China.
	China is the one that's going to be the number one profiteer from all this.
	What happens when German businesses and manufacturing can't compete?
	Who's the biggest manufacturer in the world?
	Who's in the perfect situation to pick it up?
	Who now has more access to even cheaper resources that are their major problem because of the development of relationships with Russia?
	I mean, they're empowering China and they don't even understand it.
	And now not to get too off topic, but tangentially, because I've understood that argument.
	If that's China's end goal, then what explains the Shanghai lockdown and the effects that that's going to have on the economy?
	Why not let the country continue to go that direction instead of doing what would ostensibly cripple that ability?
	Oh, it's because China's still commie at heart.
	I mean, what happened is China believes the reason why they shifted to capitalism of a kind, state capitalism of a kind, is because they concluded the reason why the Soviet Union fell...
	Was that it didn't reach the stage of the maturation of capitalism, that you needed to mature capitalism first before full communism could come in.
	Now, how much they still believe that and how much they've changed because of personal self-interest, open question about China.
	But I think you see in the social credit score system, you see in their lockdown exemplar politics, you see that they are down deep.
	They're commies at heart.
	And that's what you still see reflected.
	I don't think it is in their self-interest to continue these sort of rolling lockdowns whenever something happens.
	But I don't think that's about this version of it.
	I think the earlier version of it was about setting an example that they hoped the world would follow.
	I think this example is just a reminder to their domestic population who runs the country.
	I think that's what that is.
	Now, I wanted to bring this up.
	This is not the article that I went over yesterday, but it's from United Nations Watch.
	Ukraine's UN Gutierrez joins call for Bukha war crimes probe.
	So I guess they're calling for it, but what the heck did I read yesterday, Robert?
	Now I'm going to have to go back and look at the stream to see what article I was referring to.
	Okay, he described the Ukraine as, you know, that.
	Where was it that they voted on the committee?
	I'll get to it later, people.
	I don't even remember which article it was that I saw yesterday.
	I just know that it was an article and that I was not citing myself because I'm not good to be cited.
	I would still be in favor.
	I would hope they would do an independent inquiry.
	But the only thing I saw was the EU was just going to do a broad...
	But the EU is not a reliable institution to do this, not a mutually respectable one.
	Or respected one, and not particularly skilled.
	I mean, for all of the UN's problems, at times they have served the role of having being a mutually respected investigative agency for things like civilian death counts, for things like certain kinds of war crimes.
	Now, not with perfect consistency.
	Again, neck deep in human trafficking over and over and over and over again, particularly in the Balkans.
	But if Russia was okay with it...
	Again, if anything, they've been protective of the West, not embarrassing the West in circumstances like this because of who works for them.
	Who these investigators will be, their future paycheck is going to come from the West after the investigation is over.
	It's not going to come from Russia.
	So consequently, that's where they tend to align with.
	But it would be better than nothing.
	Now, the problem is the longer they wait, the more the forensic evidence is gone.
	Within a couple of days, the forensic evidence will be gone.
	But there's more films showing soldiers moving bodies prior to the photographs being done.
	Apparently, there are news stories now that came out that were published in Ukraine prior to this happening that said that the military units were going in there to clean up the community because the community had too many pro-Russian people in it.
	So when Britain didn't jump right away and the West didn't jump right away, Yes, let's get an independent committee on the ground tomorrow, and instead slow-walked the investigation out of the gate.
	That told me that even they know the story's not going to add up to what they want it to be.
	And of course, New York Times had to confirm the Ukrainian army is still busy whacking Russian POWs.
	Yeah, that was on Richard's Twitter feed.
	And then the problem is, you share a story like that, you'll be accused of being a Putin apologist because that's what you get when you invade a country, as if there's no international law.
	If people want to understand, what was the mindset that justified war crimes in past wars?
	Just watch these people.
	People are celebrating Korematsu.
	People are celebrating now torture of POWs.
	And by the way, folks, the reason why we're in favor of these POW rules is because they protect our POWs in war.
	That's why you do it.
	And by the way, the Ukrainian ratios must be, increasingly there's evidence that they're false.
	In the sense that Ukraine is claimed, I think it's confession through projection because I looked it up.
	The number of Ukrainian, what Ukraine's military says.
	The number of Russian casualties are, and the loss of Russian vehicles, and the loss of Russian tanks.
	Well, guess what?
	It almost matches exactly the number that Russia says Ukraine suffered.
	And so if you apply a confession through projection principle, they were just giving their own numbers and pretending it was Russia.
	The further evidence for that would be these POW exchanges.
	When they do exchange POWs, the ratio is like 5 to 1, 6 to 1. In other words, for every one Russian POW, There's five or six Ukrainian POWs, which suggests that the casualty ratio is probably a similar dynamic and probably worse because of the bombing.
	I mean, Russia's bombed.
	I mean, what Russia estimates is that half the people that they have killed, that they estimate the casualties, soldier, military casualties, are people whose bodies are unrecoverable.
	And what they're meaning is they're meaning from bombing.
	And they're doing 300 bombs a day.
	Now, Scott Ritter was on with the Duran.
	About a two, almost two and a half hour presentation.
	I don't agree with all of his take, but again, he's a pretty smart military guy, Marine guy.
	Twitter suspended him today off of Twitter.
	I was just going to look to see if he is in fact suspended.
	I saw it in the chat, but I have no knowledge of it.
	Rob, I want to bring this to Mike Maxwell.
	I know you've been around, so I don't think this is a troll or disingenuous comment.
	It's unclear whether that is a function of how the video was taken or whether it's an actual dead person moving.
	What is the case is they have photos, there's visual of Ukrainian military people moving bodies around in the street before the photographer showed up.
	Well, and I saw the video, and it could have been a piece of clothing moving in the wind.
	And where I'm very reluctant about those things, people playing forensic analysis on videos which are already grainy, compressed.
	It's like they did the same thing with Ashley Babbitt.
	Some of these autists did a deep dive on the New York Times photos.
	And what they did is they aligned it with the weather patterns.
	And with the photo, what you could identify from the weather in the photos as to whether or not the dating in the photos is accurate.
	And they have produced at least plausible initial evidence, like the kind of evidence you could put in court, that the dating is wrong, that it's not from early March, like the New York Times said, which was always weird.
	It's like, how did those bodies sat there for three weeks and there was no change in the body structure, no birds, no dogs?
	Or humans.
	The population of Bukha is 30,000 people.
	I've heard a lot of explanations, which they're plausible.
	Why would Russia do it?
	It's not in their best interest.
	Agreed.
	I can give any number of military examples of why would they do it, but they did it nonetheless.
	Scott Ritter said, is that you can always have isolated incidents.
	And that's just the nature of warfare.
	The probability it was systemic didn't make sense.
	And then the problem here was the whole historical sequence of events, forensic evidence, all of it just did not make sense at all.
	And that's why we're like, you know, it's not that I don't trust the New York Times, but I actively do not trust the New York Times.
	So when a lying institution says, we've had our journalists analyze satellite imagery from Google to determine that the timeline is...
	Bullshit.
	You guys could even get Trump's tax return story properly.
	You're going to go do forensic video editing from Google's satellite imagery?
	Bullcrap.
	I do trust the individuals on 4chan more than anyone else in MSM because they went and found Shia LaBeouf's flag.
	He will not divide us in the middle of a mountain range based on the mountain range and the planes flying overhead.
	So when the New York Times comes out and says, unequivocally, it's clear.
	I get more suspicious than I do with...
	A Russian generic over-the-top response.
	We weren't doing anything.
	There were no acts of violence against any civilians in the country that were invading in an offensive war.
	I don't believe that either.
	The New York Post is not caught spreading...
	Obvious fake news.
	So, you know, we've talked about Patrick, the reporter that's on the ground in Ukraine, in the Donbass, has been for eight years.
	He documented several weeks ago a woman they found in the bottom after an area they'd cleared out from the Assoff Battalion in that region of Donbass.
	And they found a woman in the bottom of the building, manifestly tortured, and they put a swastika on her stomach.
	There was no question who did this.
	It was because of who was in control of that building at the time that incident happened, were Ukrainians.
	The New York Post republished that photo and said it was an example of Russians doing it.
	It's like, this is such lazy journalism, they couldn't check a popular YouTube channel to show them how wrong they were that that's the original source of the image.
	This is how bad our media is being.
	So the New York Post was not spreading foreign disinformation when they put out Hunter Biden's laptop.
	Now they are putting out foreign disinformation in promotion of a war that Rupert Murdoch is clearly a fan of.
	And you know what's amazing?
	It brings back my memory to, I'm not going to show it, it's just one of the most horrific things ever, the Fogel family.
	It's called the Itamar attack, also known as the Itamar massacre.
	It was a West Bank family.
	Five members of a family that were killed in 2011 in one of the flare-ups in Israel.
	And the photos circulated, and I remember at the time being shocked that they were sharing these photos, and the rationale for why they were being shared was, you have to see what's going on.
	And then it was a little while later, I mean, not the same flare-up of the Intifada, but a little while later, that same atrocity was being promoted as an alleged act of, you know, Crime, whatever, committed by Israel against the Palestinians.
	And this is not just...
	The context is only relevant for the context.
	It's the idea that in war, you get to a point where one side is using images of its own atrocities to purport that the opposing side did them.
	It happened with the Fogel family in Israel, and it happened again here this time around, and people are discovering it.
	But the problem is then...
	People discover it, and then they so don't believe anything.
	They say, I don't even believe that.
	And it's, you know, where do you go from there?
	Look at independent third-party sources that have a history of being accurate and predicting things accurately in this particular conflict.
	So, I mean, look at the whole military analysis.
	You had the Scott Ritter analysis.
	You had the Duran analysis.
	My analysis, some other people along these lines that said that they were not going in to occupy Kiev.
	That was not the initial objective.
	They didn't.
	They pulled out entirely.
	Now, I get certain people pretending the Ukrainians beat them back.
	Okay, that isn't what happened, but okay, we'll pretend that if you want.
	Either way, they didn't have that objective in mind, and that was evident by the amount of military they brought in, which was way insufficient, especially when you're not bombing or taking out civilian infrastructure.
	Whereas these other people just keep making stuff up.
	But, I mean, I think the other thing we have, you have a sense of how bad it is that you have a Ukrainian president appearing daily in front of a green screen and pretending it's not a green screen, right?
	And the whole world's supposed to pretend it's not a green screen.
	And everybody can see that it's a green screen.
	I mean, he may be there in Kiev, but whatever it is, he won't do anything that at night he's doing.
	He's making it sound like he's walking across the streets of Kiev.
	It's obvious he's not.
	And that gives you an idea for how contemptuous they are of the people of the West.
	They'll lie right to your face.
	It's like the way, was it Solzhenitsyn?
	I'm maybe getting his name wrong.
	One of them that described the Soviet mindset.
	They're lying.
	We know they're lying.
	They know they're lying.
	And they know we know they're lying.
	And that's the point.
	Yeah, I forget who it was.
	It's to remind you of how much control the system has over you.
	They're going to lie right to your face and wait for you to cheerlead their lives.
	And there's plenty of Americans out there doing it.
	I mean, Sean Hannity had Sean Penn on the other night.
	He was busy crying.
	And Sean Penn, now calling for nuclear war.
	He was like, we've got to think about using our nuclear arsenals.
	People are saying, you know, what was it there for?
	Oh my.
	God!
	What compromised material is on there on Sean Penn?
	Everybody knows your daddy was a commie, Sean.
	You don't have to keep crying about that.
	I mean, my goodness, whatever the deal is, how insane Sean Penn crying for nuclear war with the cheerleading of Sean Hannity on Rupert Murdoch's TV station.
	Robert, how familiar are you with the latest incident involving the nitric acid tank?
	Only a little bit.
	It appears the Ukrainians blew something up, and it's not clear they meant to blow it up what they blew up.
	But that's about all I could deduce from it, because you have competing reports.
	Now, here's what is interesting.
	There is more and more evidence that the rumors might be true, that some people are in Maropol who should not be in Maropol.
	It appears that NATO has claimed, we don't have people on the ground there in Ukraine.
	The U.S. has said, we don't have people there on the ground in Ukraine.
	Well, they might not only be on the ground in Ukraine, they might have been training the ass-off neo-Nazis in Marimaropol in Ukraine.
	Because they keep sending in helicopters trying to get somebody desperately out of there.
	The Russians said, hey, we'll use a humanitarian corridor and you can go through.
	And we'll arrest military people, but everybody else can go through.
	It's clear, but they said, nope, nope, nope, can't do that.
	Instead, they just keep sending in helicopters that keep getting shot down, trying to get somebody out of there.
	And the rumors have been there's high-ranking French, British, Swedish, German, and American military officials there with the neo-Nazis.
	There's somebody there that the Western world does not want to know was on the ground on these...
	And now I have seen the video footage of a helicopter going down, and I take it for not being able to identify where, when, and what.
	The impact, obviously, the relevance, the international import of foreign individuals being in Ukraine training individuals would be, that's effectively international war.
	It's NATO.
	You know, it means NATO's involved in the war.
	Directly.
	And NATO has disclaimed that.
	So, you know, if they had not disclaimed it, maybe a little bit different, but their whole pretext was this was just Russia invading Ukraine for no reason, not NATO was there staging a proxy war against Russia.
	We've known there's been NATO training and NATO arming, but not NATO people on the ground during the conflict, number one.
	Number two, definitely not NATO people with the Azov Battalion in Maropol were some of the worst.
	Most horrific activities.
	This smacks like when we recruited the Nazis after World War II to help us with Latin American dictatorships torture a bunch of lefties.
	And your question is, were they doing it again?
	You're talking about Operation Paperclip, correct?
	Yeah, that was one of it.
	There was Operation Paperclip.
	There was Operation Condor, which is independent of three days of the Condor.
	There's what Michael Levine has been talking about with Eric Hunley.
	On his Unstructured podcast, you can find it at unstructured.locals.com.
	Eric sent me free t-shirts.
	That was smart.
	That's good advertising, so I'll wear a couple of them at some point.
	But Levine talks about Klaus Barbie was running the Bolivian, introduced cocaine to North America to the degree of popularity it obtained, was thanks to Klaus Barbie working with the Bolivians, Klaus Barbie being the former Nazi.
	We helped escape and then protect after it because when Levine, as the DEA guy in Argentina, wanted to investigate, his investigation got shut down.
	This is the greatest DEA agent in DEA history, by the way, who left the DEA because of all the corruption he witnessed, and particularly that got to amongst other things.
	You know, we may have been on the ground.
	There's also rumors that there's something in those steelworks that they don't want to give up what's in that huge steel factory there in Maripol, which has long history.
	It was one of the great steel manufacturer mills of the world.
	But there's been rumors that there's something called the pit.
	There's something that has many levels because that steel factory is meant to withstand all kinds of bombing after World War II.
	And so if another NATO attack happened and whatnot, so there's rumors that there's something going on.
	There may have been a torture-type facility, maybe even involving certain kinds of biological agents, that basically NATO and the West and CIA may have been using this as a special project, torturing Russians in Maripol, using Assoff Battalion, but under the supervision of NATO special operations officers, including potentially Americans, Brits, French.
	And Swedes were not even in NATO.
	And it would be deeply humiliating.
	It would prove all of Russia's points about what was happening with Ukraine.
	So let's watch to see if something comes to that story over the next week or two.
	But there's something in that factory they don't want people to find.
	And there's some people in that factory they don't want the Russians to find.
	It's a full of rubbish.
	You open a floodgate of information and people have to digest and then go look into it.
	But to simplify it, just so we can clarify some terms.
	Operation Mockingbird was intelligence embedding assets within mainstream media, the New York Times, to plant stories to feed a narrative.
	The CIA invented the phrase conspiracy theory and popularized it in the 1950s.
	All right.
	And we factored.
	There is some talk as to whether or not the term existed prior to, but it was definitely weaponized.
	Created a new academic term for the media to use in such a way that it would discredit critics.
	Okay, and that's Operation Mockingbird.
	Operation Paperclip, as far as I limited understand of it, they exported, imported, emigrated.
	They took basically Nazi survivors, intelligent individuals.
	They exfiltrated high-ranking Nazis and protected them both from the Soviets and from Nuremberg.
	And they called it Operation Paperclip.
	Because they stuck a paperclip of a fake file on top of the real file they put somewhere else.
	That's why it meant something physical.
	What were they doing it for?
	For the knowledge, for the experience, for their expertise in coming to America and designing weapons and machinery and whatever?
	Yeah, I mean, the head of our rocket program for NASA to help send us to the moon was a ex-NATI.
	Who used to run the rocket program there.
	So the official excuse was their expertise.
	A subtextual excuse was they were useful to be anti-communist.
	The reality is we went for some of the most barbaric ones.
	We helped Mengele get down to Argentina.
	Why?
	Because we did the same thing in Japan.
	We went into bed with the people who were experimenting on people in China.
	With the Japanese, we didn't lock them up.
	We had them come on in.
	Tell us all that useful experimentation.
	Tell us what information you found out.
	Tell us how does this agent work?
	How does this form of torture work?
	They wanted to know the science.
	My goodness, at the risk of opening another door here, it was...
	What was it called?
	It was a hangar in Japan where they were testing on humans.
	What was the name for that place?
	It's Operation.
	It's like a number.
	I always forget the number.
	And for anybody, the day I discovered the definition of the term vivisection was a very dark day of my early childhood.
	We all know what a dissection is.
	It's when you cut up a deceased creature to break it apart.
	A vivisection is the exact opposite with the same technique.
	And after World War II, it became the moral, ethical question.
	What do you do with all of this documented research that the Japanese had done, that the Nazis had done, in terms of human experimentation, vivisections, the most atrocious stuff you can possibly imagine.
	What do you do with it?
	I understood that they destroyed the information because they said, for the sake of humanity, whatever we learned from this cannot be worth what was done in order to gather this information.
	Am I understanding, Robert, that the idea behind Operation Paperclip was to surreptitiously...
	Absolutely.
	And to employ some of their skill sets in Eastern Europe and later in Latin America and in other parts of the world.
	It was like, I mean, Three Days of the Condor, other films like this, Marathon Man helped portray how much ex-Nazis were utilized.
	Because, I mean, think about it.
	They were particularly useful.
	If you looked at it from a pure, you know, unemotional, your conscience didn't factor into it.
	It was, who would be a very useful tool to help teach torture to Latin American dictatorships?
	People forget, by the late 1960s, or definitely by the mid-1970s, after they overthrew certain people, you had every country in Latin America was a dictatorship.
	Every single one.
	Who are they employing?
	People can research Operation Condor and other things.
	They're employing Klaus Barbie who helped teach him torture techniques.
	Who better to teach you torture techniques than some Nazis?
	What was Operation Condor?
	That's the one that I have not yet heard of.
	Operation Condor involved training Latin Americans to help coordinate the efforts of torturing leftist dissidents throughout Latin America as one part of it.
	We propped up a bunch of dictatorships under the guise of anti-communism.
	Some of that was legitimate concern with communist insurgencies.
	A lot of it wasn't.
	A lot of it was just to promote dictatorships, totalitarian dictatorships of the most vicious kind.
	All the disappearances in Brazil, disappearances in Argentina, disappearances in Peru, disappearances in Chile.
	We're still feeling that vestigial effect.
	Populism has taken a left-leaning turn in Latin America.
	In part because of America's, the United States of America's bad activities in the 60s and 70s and 80s there.
	And so that people have not forgotten.
	I mean, a lot of Native American or Indian indigenous groups in Latin America were also particularly perniciously targeted.
	This is still an issue in Bolivia politically.
	It's really part of the reason for Morales' popularity.
	And so amongst the indigenous in Bolivia.
	Even though the Shining Path taught them the sign of what Marxism looks like unmasked too.
	But yeah, I would not be surprised at all.
	Like I said, Ukraine was the perfect place to do these kind of grifts.
	Every deep state, nasty dream fantasy idea, they've used Ukraine for.
	And that's why the bio labs were all over there.
	And that's why they were probably doing torture training and figuring out information and figuring out new techniques using these neo-Nazis against Russians in Maropol.
	And if that comes out, if the Russians are able to verify that with actual people, it's going to be...
	Politically, it will have big ramifications.
	How impactful?
	We'll see.
	But definitely embarrassing for the West, but to the Russian population, it will lock in what Putin said about NATO.
	Was it Unit 731, Robert?
	That sounds right.
	That's when I just Googled them back around.
	The Japanese were in some cases worse than the Nazis.
	If anyone wants to look up a documentary called The Road to Nanking, you can look up what the...
	Or The Rape of Nanking.
	Was it The Rape of Nanking or The Road to Nanking?
	I think it's called The Rape of Nanking.
	Growing up, you don't understand why the Chinese have such a deep-rooted animosity for the Japanese.
	Growing up, if you're not...
	Israeli or Palestinian, you don't understand that animosity.
	Growing up, if you're not Russian or Ukrainian, you don't understand that animosity.
	But Rape of Nanking, I think that's it.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, Unit 731.
	I think that's right.
	It's the stuff of nightmares.
	And by the way, we brought them all in.
	We brought them all.
	We were obsessed.
	Remember, MKUltra was a...
	was originated by research done with the help of the Japanese bioweapons researchers and the Nazis.
	In fact, one of the predecessor group to MKUltra formed, I think it was Operation Bluebird if I recall right, in Germany with the help of Nazis right afterwards.
	And we were focused on the people at the camps.
	Tell us all you learned about how to torture and how to experiment.
	Tell us what you designed and how we might be able to employ it.
	And this led into...
	Their obsession with the idea that the North Koreans had figured out a way to brainwash people.
	And that's what led to MKUltra's full fruition, where we experimented on our own, including a young, kind of autistic, with some odd tendencies, Harvard student by the name of Ted Kaczynski.
	That might be, Robert, the place to end this stream, because people have been saying, Dave, Viva, look into Ted Kaczynski.
	And by the way, the MKUltra has some local roots right here in Montreal, the Allen Memorial Institute.
	It's a known thing.
	So, people, I hope that has not been too much of a...
	They're all red pills.
	They're all red pills.
	Really interesting stuff.
	He's one of the new up-and-coming populist intellectuals.
	Or intellectuals with populist tendencies and more anti-establishment proclivities.
	So he's part of what you could call the new conservative intelligentsia.
	That's challenging, old, established views.
	That's useful for people to be introduced to.
	And someone just said, don't end best live stream ever.
	I mean, I agree.
	But, Robert, we got to...
	First of all, you got to save some material for...
	When are you doing the next Bourbon with Barnes on vivabarneslaw.com?
	Yeah, so that'll be live again tomorrow.
	And you can see the hush-hush on the first ever foreign false flag as to getting America into a foreign war, which is up currently, which was...
	Remember the main to hell with Spain the first time that we bought the propaganda.
	So that's going to be tomorrow night.
	Tomorrow, people, at 1 o 'clock Eastern Time, 10 o 'clock Pacific Time, the Honorable Brian Peckford.
	Friday, we're going to try to get somebody, but Sunday, we've got something, Robert.
	And what time does the Bourbon with Barnes start on vivabarneslaw.locals.com?
	Six-ish Vegas time.
	So that'll be...
	For the East Coast.
	Nine o 'clock Eastern.
	I believe that would be seven o 'clock Mountain.
	Nine-ish.
	Remember the ish.
	I'm always on time because it's always ish.
	Perfect.
	Robert, I know I'm looking up Ted Kaczynski right now.
	I'm going to go start watching some YouTube documentaries.
	Ted Kaczynski, MKUltra, Harvard.
	Gosh, I think I may not be sleeping tonight.
	Robert, amazing stuff.
	I'm going to pin when this...
	It's got to process on YouTube, people.
	So when it processes, the pinned comment is going to be Richard Hananias.
	All of his links.
	Robert, look, you and I shall be speaking sooner than later.
	If you can make it tomorrow, I'll send you the links.
	I've got to set it up after this.
	But otherwise...
	Bourbon with Barnes tomorrow night, 9-ish Eastern on vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you for the aggregate knowledge, the disagreement, the challenging questions.
	I like them, and I like, you know, having an opportunity to address them.
	So, Robert, you know what?
	Stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone in the chat, enjoy the evening.
	See you tomorrow.

▲