B (1:27)

Oh, yeah.

A (1:28)

So I was in Cannes Film Festival, and. And Monaco was happening. I was supposed to go, and then I had a schedule change. I'm like, I'm not going to go to Monaco, so this will be the first.

B (1:37)

Nice. Let's do it, man. Well, onto more serious topics. Now, I know we kind of discussed. We wanted to talk about Israel and the truth and what's going on. So where's your head out right now with everything?

A (1:45)

I thought it was really interesting. Like, me and you were just sitting in the car and I think you were giving me a ride to the airport or something, and you kind of started. We started talking about stuff, and, you know, I don't have any personal vest into Israel. Like, so it's an interesting topic to get into, because I'm observing it more as a civilian person. I live in Europe. I live in Eastern Europe, where, if you know what's happening in Europe right now, demographically and politically, there's such a cultural shift that is coming along with a significant cultural decline. And when I say Europe, I'm going to include England into this too, because England is seeing significant negative ramifications of what the crowd that tends to be pro Palestine, anti Israel has brought with it into Europe, along with the demographic changes and the actual erosion of society. As a father, I guess that's kind of the angle I'm coming from, is like as a civilian, as a father, seeing what has been happening in England and in Europe, where I live, and understanding what the next wave that will be happening in the US I think is very important to discuss. And you're seeing it now with Mamdani in New York and the incredible desolution, the incredible undermining of Western values that that's going to bring. And partly, partly fueled by this sort of a very leftist crowd which has a set of values which are juxtaposed to that which built the great country of the United States. I'm not American, but I respect and admire what America has stood and represented. As an ex Soviet immigrant to North America myself, it's a. It's a. It's a crazy time and it's worth discussing.

B (3:29)

Yeah, it's. It's good to get on it now because Europe's, I mean, not the same. And America is going to be next, right?

A (3:35)

Well, look what happened in England. So this year in England alone, over 1640,000 millionaires have left England. Now why is that an impact? Now keep in mind the, the leftist crowd is like, down with billionaires. We don't need millionaires. You know, it's all like the socialist message. Understand that the top 1% of taxpayers pay something like 50% of all the taxes. Like that's how that is, right? So when you lose your wealthiest people, you're not. You're not losing evil capitalists. You're losing people that create payroll tax, that create sales tax, that create income tax, corporate income tax. Like, you need people to create companies, and you need people to run companies that grow in order to maintain the economy and to have people have jobs. Okay? The government's not going to create meaningful jobs. The government, like, name one entity that has ever been created by any government as a private corporation that's still around today and thriving and, and they don't exist. Like, I grew up in Soviet Ukraine and in the Soviet Union. There are no companies from the Soviet Union that around today. Now in the States you have lots of. I can think of a lot of companies in the States right now that are coming to mind that have been around for hundreds of years. You know, Ford, Manulife, these companies are still around because they're built on consumeristic values. When the government gets involved, that doesn't happen because their ultimate goal is not to create value for society. It's the administrative class and government. It's a very populous thing to say, but it's the administrative class within government, the politicians and the bureaucrats that just suck up the money out of the system. That's why everything a government takes longer and costs more, much more.

B (5:02)

Right.

A (5:02)

Okay, so England has lost 16,500 millionaires. They've lost over 270,000 people that have exited. Now there have been a lot of people that have entered England. We'll talk about that. But over 275,000 people have left England this year. They've emigrated. They've left. They're not coming back. And who are those people? And on the flip side, who are the people coming in? And when you look at the people coming in and you know, you can look at the demographics of those of those people, something like 80% of them are on social benefits. Wow. And it doesn't drop from generation to generation. Right. Again, you can look at what those demographics are, where they come from. But when you have an immigrant class that's 80% on social benefits, whereas your millionaires that create tax revenue for the country are leaving, you're headed towards disaster. And when London had Khan as mayor who came in on a platform very similar to Mamdani, like I don't want to go to London anymore. I don't like going to London anymore. It's dangerous. It's now become the phone theft capital of the world. Now signs on the streets not take your cell phone like a third world country.

B (6:00)

And you can't wear a watch or jewelry 100%.

A (6:02)

There's many areas you cannot. And so watching what's been happening and watching how the crowd that is how the crowd that is the socialist leftist crowd, which is completely using communist propaganda that anybody that's lived in the Soviet Union has been very acclimated to, we've seen that before and how they've picked up on this message, which is a pro Palestine message, which actually has nothing to do with the land of Palestine whatsoever. It has to do with dividing the American political class. And we'll talk about that, too, in order to achieve a completely different goal, which is not just the subversion of Israel. Israel is a proxy for America. It always has been. It's America's proxy in the Middle East. But the actual subversion of America and what you're seeing right now, you know, with the MAGA and America first people, is look at it from a political perspective like this. Like, the Democrats in the states have absolutely no path to winning the next election. They don't have a viable candidate. Right?

B (6:56)

Like, you don't think Newsom.

A (6:57)

Well, so let's talk. So Kamala was the last one. She became hugely unpopular, right? Like, massively unpopular. Newsom is as corrupt as they come. I mean, if you want to talk about Gavin Newsom just on a character basis, think about it like this. This is a guy, while he was running for governor of California, had his best friend as his campaign manager. So his campaign manager was his best friend. And you trust your best friend, I hope? Yeah, yeah. So he was banging his best friend's wife during that run to the. And it's like you want to talk about a character issue of a person you can or shouldn't trust. This is a psychopathic person, right? A person who shut down California during the pandemic while keeping his own wineries open. Interestingly, a person who said he would end homelessness and put billions of dollars into homelessness, only to double or triple the problem. Where's that money going? So the Democrats don't have a particularly useful candidate to present in the next election. And you've seen this in the Soviet times as well. When you. When you can't win, when you can't win with merit, you win with lawfare. And so what if I'm running a. A disinformation campaign or if I'm running a. A psych, you know, a mass. Sort of a mass formation psychosis event where I want to undermine my enemy in the States. What am I doing? I'm bifurcating the other side's base. I introduce a topic that splits the Republican vote, and their Democratic candidate can then sneak into the next election. And by the way, do America's adversaries want a Republican government or a Democratic government?

B (8:20)

Democratic.

A (8:21)

They've always wanted a Democratic government. Right. Because the Republicans are founded on a set of principles that they don't acquiesce on. And there's a really interesting way to. To display that. Let me. Let me explain it like this. So if I. Let's say, let's just paint a hypothetical Situation, right? Let's say I'm the head of CIA in the 1980s, and in the 1980s, the biggest objective of the U. S. Government is anti communism. This is still cold war times, okay? And so if I want to undermine communism, I want to undermine the tenets of communism. So we have something coming in. Let's say it's the gay pride movement. And we as Americans or Canadians or western Europeans, wherever we are, we might say, okay, well, I'm, I'm pro that. Like, you know what, people can live their own life and, and they're not bothering us. We don't need to get involved. Like, let people do what they want to do. Perfect. Now if I'm the head of the CIA, I might say, how would I undermine the gay rights movement? I know I'm going to push it so far that it's going to split the democratic base. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to take the, you know, you're free to love whoever you love, and I'm going to throw a parade and I'm going to have guys dancing around with, you know, half naked, whatever, in leather straps, and they're going to dance in the streets. And then, you know, people are going to say, well, I'm not into this, let's forget all about that. So they did that and nothing happened. So my next step is I'm going to invite the kids to the parade. So they did that, and now you have kids watching adult men, you know, throwing around dildos and dancing basically naked. And if I'm trying to undermine that movement as the CIA, I'm thinking, now the left is gonna, is gonna split. And they're like, nah, they're totally into that. So the next step would be like, well, why don't we just have dudes dressed up as chicks going into classrooms? Like, let's just put trannies in the classrooms and reading stories to the kids, by the way. Why? You know what I mean? It's like, what agenda are we pushing? Why not put a person with disability into the classroom and acclimate people to something that, you know, is a little bit more, let's say, a little bit more necessary for society is to include people that don't have a choice in the matter versus those that are pushing some kind of a strange truth killing agenda? So they put trannies in the classroom and you would think, well, now the teachers are going to go against it. No, the left was like, cool. More. So as the final step, if I wanted to destroy the. Let's say right wing or Republican established or. Sorry, if I wanted to destroy the gay rights movement as part of the right wing or Republican establishment, what I would do is I would put men into women's sports and then we would be watching men crack women's skulls and we did. And how did the left react?

B (10:42)

They supported it.

A (10:43)

They supported right. So there's an important lesson here. And the lesson is that you can't bifurcate the left because it gets, it gets as degenerate as it possibly gets. Because on a personality profile scale, people on the left, they don't have a very strong disgust mechanism. People on the right do. And so you can't actually bifurcate the left. You can go as, as degenerate as you possibly want. And there's always going to be a fringe that's completely into it and they're the loudest, most vociferous and most aggressive people that will push that agenda. So we saw like a dissolution of gender in the United States. All of a sudden men can compete in women's sports and college levels. Men compete in women's beauty pageants and wins and win. Like that's actually insane.

B (11:21)

Yeah.

A (11:22)

And so, but there's a lesson in that is that if you were trying to bring down the left, you can't do it through bifurcation. On the right, it's quite different. You introduce a topic, maybe it says, well, maybe it's something else and people start to split up.

B (11:32)

Yeah.

A (11:32)

So if you're on the left and you can't win, what do you do? You split the other side. It's called Lawfare and it's been the tool. Lawfare has been the tool of communists since the beginning of communism. Communism is built on Lawfare. And in order to effectively deploy Lawfare, you can't use facts. So leftist faculties in university are going to be your human, you know, your human resources faculties, your, you know, your fine arts. They're not math. Because in Matthew of facts that are that are, you can back up with proofs, with evidence and, and with just exact answers. The leftist faculties have no exact answers. They can take any idea, twist it into anything at all and call it a paper. Fine. So what the, what the. America's adversaries have been doing quite effectively is running an incredible disinformation campaign in order to undermine facts and historical, historical facts and accurate figures in order to bifurcate the Republican class, let's say, in the United States. And that's, that's where Israel enters because it's A contentious, contentious topic. It's going to divide the right and let leftist candidates sneak in. And what do leftist candidates do? More immigration, more demographic shifts, more degeneracy.

B (12:50)

They're going to open the borders again.

A (12:51)

Well, and look at it like this, right? Like one of the most interesting and profoundly stupid arguments against Israel. And by the way, I'm not. I'm not Israeli. Like, I have no ties to the country. Like, for me, it's just like watching it as a. As a citizen, as an entrepreneur. And, you know, I'll say this. I'm a. I'm a capitalist, an unapologetic capitalist. I've built a global business, right? And I will continue to build and I will never stop building. Okay, but what the. What the disinformation campaign said is like, oh, it's some, like, Jews sitting around, like, letting all the immigrants into the country is the Jew. You know, Israel's trying to like and think about how stupid this is, right? Like, so Israel's allies have been Western nations since the beginning of time because the Western nations have supported them. So it's England, it's France, it's Germany. These are the allies, right? And so the argument is Israel wants to change the demographics of the Western countries so much that the people that now are entering these countries are so anti Israel that the nuclear powers those countries hold will now be turned on Israel. Like, who the hell on that side would want that? That's an insane argument, right? And you look at, you know, and you look at these countries, demographic shifts, obviously nobody that wants to preserve themselves is driving that demographic shift, but that's the kind of disinformation we're seeing.

B (13:58)

Yeah, there's a lot of disinformation, man. It's all over social media. They've done phenomenal with it. Yes, you can't deny that. Shout out to today's sponsor, Quint. As the weather cools, I'm swapping in the pieces that actually gets the job done that are warm, durable, and built to last. Quint delivers every time with wardrobe staples that'll carry you through the season. They. They have fall staples that you'll actually want to wear, like the 100% Mongolian cashmere for just $60. They also got classic fit denim and real leather and wool outerwear that looks sharp and holds up by partnering directly with ethical factories and top artisans. Quince cuts out the middleman to deliver premium quality at half the cost of similar brands. They've really become a go to across the board. You guys know how I love Linen and how I've talked about it on previous episodes. I picked up some linen pants and they feel incredible. Quality is definitely noticeable compared to other brands. Layer up this fall with pieces that feel as good as they look. Go to quint.comdsh for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. They're also available in Canada too.

A (15:10)

They are incredibly good at it, but they're using tactics that we've seen before and they are literal communist playbook tactics. One of my favorite disinformation figures is that now they're saying that, you know, the Jews incited communism in the Soviet Union, which killed like 20 million Christians or whatever. So that's, that that's fake on so many levels because you can just do the research. And I'm very interested in numbers. And I think, you know, as an entrepreneur, you always want to make decisions like you do when you look at your channel. You always want to make decisions that are based on real life information, not on conjecture. Right. And it was, I looked at the numbers and again, we just, I was having a debate with a friend of mine about this. We're like, well, let's look at the numbers. Something like 1.2% of Communist Party members in the Soviet Union were of Jewish background. 1.2%. That's hardly enough to sway the other 98.8%. Like, that's a very tiny, tiny fraction. And the key into entering the Soviet Party in the united, in the, in the USSR was that you have to abolish your own religion. You have to absolve yourself from religious belief. Because in communism, that's Religion is illegal. Right, right. So the idea that like this, like 1% of people were able to sway the entire population into a communist agenda is completely insane. But the idea that was created now in the right wing, you know, in the bifurcating sort of misinformation is the Jews caused, you know, communism. Well, if you look at the formation even of Israel and, and you know, in the, in the region which was administered by the United, by Great Britain at the time, it was the communists that did not side with Israel. The communists sided with, well, at the time it was the Palestinian Arabs, not the Palestinians, because everybody in the Palestine region were the Palestinians and Palestinian Arabs. Right. And so Yasser Arafat, who was the founder of the plo, who ended up representing, let's say, the new identity of Palestinians, which is the Palestinian Arabs, which are now just the Palestinians. So we've kind of, the terms have changed. He was the creation of The Soviet Union. He was trained in Moscow, and his entire life biography was falsified. Wow. Said he was born in Jerusalem, he was born in Egypt. His daughter today is worth $6 billion. 100% came from aid. The 10 richest people in Gaza are all Hamas members who have. Who are, by the way, I think six of them are billionaires.

B (17:31)

I didn't know they had money like that.

A (17:33)

Well, how do you get six billionaires in Gaza? Gaza is the size of Las Vegas.

B (17:36)

Wow.

A (17:37)

The billionaires, it's all. It's all stolen international funding, Right? And, you know, through organizations like the unwra, by the way, which is just stealing money, which is like, you know, all these international help funds that Doge started to dismantle are all just creating to spin the wheels to steal money. It's the. It's the Gavin Newsom homeless problem. And how do you spend billions of dollars to end homelessness? And you have more homeless people, like, where the money go? If you just gave that money to the homeless people, you'd have no homeless people, Right? So bureaucratic bureaucracies and fake companies that are fake, governmental companies that are set up in order to steal money and NGOs that take money from government. Right? So the disinformation campaign is absolutely wild. And why does it matter to me? Like, I'm not from there. I'm not involved in that anyway, personally. Well, it's still my tax dollars that are funding things that are eroding the society in which I live.

B (18:22)

Right?

A (18:23)

That's the problem.

B (18:23)

So it is impacting you.

A (18:25)

It's impacting all of us. When you look at, again, you look at England, where you have an immigrant class that's 80% on welfare, where in the second and third generation, 60% of the people are still on welfare that are just consuming, right? So you have more people consuming than you have contributing, and all the contributors are leaving. Right? And that comes with not only a dissolution of Western institutions, it comes with a dissolution of Western values which run those institutions, right? So you're seeing a higher preponderance in violence and theft and crime. I mean, you're seeing that lower results in standardized testing across the spectrum. Like, you see Finland, which has been number one in the world, and standardized test for students is now dropping ranks. And people are like, why are we dropping ranks? We kind of know why. It's because of this demographic shift that's been happening, which, again, the crazies on the left, which are completely brainwashing the youth, are saying, oh, Israel is funding all the you know, corruption of western valleys. Like, no, Israel wants Germany as an ally, it wants France as an ally. It wants England as an ally, it wants Canada as an ally. Why would they in any way try to shift the demographics in such a way that the nuclear powers that are their allies would shift against them? It's completely nonsensical.

B (19:33)

Yeah, yeah, Speaking of funding aipac, they get a lot of the negative publicity, right?

A (19:38)

So I was having a chat with a friend of mine who's a very high profile lawyer and we, we just wanted to look in the numbers again. I'm looking at it from a capitalistic perspective. Let's just look at numbers like, and I'll give you an example. Like there's this thing in the red pill community which I think is super funny. Well, they'll say something about like women in general, right? And I'll show you how this ties together. And then, and then they'll be like, you know, women, you know, don't really date short guys. There'll be something they'll say and then some women will be like, well, I'm dating a short guy. So you're taking something that's, that's factually accurate because you can look at the data and see that women actually select out of dating shorter men on, on dating websites, right? And you're replacing it with an anecdote. But my friend, you know, it's like that, that doesn't work like that. So the APAC argument is like, you know, they're powerful, blah, blah. So there's a guy named Thomas Sowell who is one of the greatest economists of all time. And Thomas OWLS has three ways to evaluate decisions to see if you understand it. And the first thing is, compared to what? So APAC spends $3 million a year on, on lobbying. And you might say $3 million a year. What does that mean? Well, to put into perspective, the American Realtors association spends 85 million a year on lobbying. Okay? So by a factor of about 30x, the American realtor association is more powerful than, than the APAC lobby in the United States.

B (20:51)

Do they really only spend 3 million a year?

A (20:53)

3 million a year. This is verifiable.

B (20:54)

Thought it was way more for some reason.

A (20:55)

It's 3 million a year. It's verifiable. It's out there. I mean again we can say like, oh, but they swell a politician. So it's 3 million a year. Okay, let's put it more into perspective. Qatar, the country of Qatar, which is probably America's. It's interesting to have this love hate relationship, but it's the biggest adversary of western values today. And Qatar is basically a slave country by the way. Like there's the 5% ruling class and like 95% of the people are all complete foreigners that are there working for tiny little wages to prop up this government which controls all the oil and keeps it all in their family. I mean, it should be like a country that could very easily be on par with Norway, but it's not. It's at the big whatever. Qatar spent something like a billion dollars just into Harvard's endowment.

B (21:35)

Wow. A year.

A (21:37)

I think it's total, it's been a billion. But in total lobbying, the numbers are so outrageously, so outrageously different. Look at it this way. $3 million lobbying versus a billion that's put into Harvard. Okay, what's the difference between 3 million and a billion?

B (21:54)

A lot.

A (21:54)

It's about a billion. Yeah, the difference is about a billion. Right. So the $3 million that's spent on lobbying is like. So it's again, you can say it's $3 million. Sure, at face value. But you have to have some basis of comparison compared to what $3 million versus $85 million. Who's got more power in government? So can we say that If Israel spends 3 million a year, APAC spends 3 million a year on lobbying the US government. Can we say that with 85 million a year, the American Realtors association is causing the collapse of society. Is that not more likely? They have 30 times more power. And that's just one, one small lobby group. Right. 85 million is even nothing in the face of lobbying. I mean the amount of money that weapons manufacturers will spend on lobbying, the amount of money that cigarette tobacco companies spend a lobbying, the amount of money that even plumbers like plumbing associations, unions, you know, that are representing the most, you know, basic day to day operative tasks in the country are spending significantly more money. So my friend then said to me, he goes, okay, well if they're only spending 3 million, we. And by the way, he's a lawyer. So we were like, we're literally checking records. Yeah, like, okay, cool. And this information is very public. Okay. My friend goes, but what about all those Israeli citizens in U. S. Congress? What do you mean? He's like, well, you know, they have dual citizenships. I'm like, cool, let's do some research. We went one by one and it was a shocking discovery. How many congress people in the U.S. hold on. Israeli dual citizenship.

B (23:11)

How many?

A (23:11)

Zero.

B (23:12)

Really? What?

A (23:14)

Zero. Look at, I mean this is public. This is the funny part, because we're hearing propaganda. But. But nobody checks things, right? So he goes, okay, well, maybe it's not congress people, maybe it's us, you know, maybe it's US Senators. Okay? So then we went one by one and we went through all the US Senators. How many hold a dual citizenship or have any dual past citizenship with Israel? And the answer will shock you. It's zero.

B (23:34)

No way.

A (23:34)

It's zero. Wow. So think about this, okay? You're taking a country. It's like, Israel is a country. Of course, you take a country that is very small in the scheme of things, that has no natural resources, Israel doesn't have oil. Like, they don't have like Saudi money or Qatari money. They don't have any of that. They're like in the shittiest piece of land in that part of the world. And by the way, going east to west in a country by airplane is a three minute flight.

B (23:56)

What?

A (23:56)

It's tiny?

B (23:56)

It's that small?

A (23:57)

Yes. Israel.

B (23:58)

Holy crap.

A (23:58)

I live in Estonia and most people have never heard of Estonia. And my friend was like, well, Israel's at least bigger than Estonia. So we looked it up. Estonia is five times bigger than Israel. And Estonia is one of the smallest countries in Europe. I mean, we're talking about a piece of land that's so absurdly small. Right. Again, it's blown out of proportion because nobody actually looks at a map. Nobody looks at the numbers. We just say things like, well, my friend's dating a short guy. It's like, no, you have to look at the numbers for the data. Right, right. So. So you look at a tiny little country which has no, no, like money to export. It's like, why is the lobby so small? It's $3 million like a foreign government's giving a billion dollars to the university right there. And then you can look up the numbers. It's like, because they don't have money to export. Like, yeah, they have some wealthy people like all countries do. They have some great startup companies like some countries do, but they're a tiny, tiny, tiny little piece of land that has got a lot of internal, you know, political whatever discourse and their own problems. They don't have the money like Qatar, like Saudi Arabia to put out there and to, and to buy political whatever. And so then you get the things like, well, somebody goes on social media, they get $7,000 for saying something. Yep, that's completely fake. But what's not fake is that Tucker Carlson is on paper having received money from a Qatari endowment. Like that was confirmed, of course. Yeah. There's completely transparent records on it that are online that people can see. Again, everybody's gonna say, yeah, but it's like, I'm not arguing for a position one or the other. I'm simply stating again, I have no skin in the games. Just. Just basic facts.

B (25:25)

Yeah.

A (25:25)

Like the erosion of truth is the erosion of objective facts and data. If you say that you have this incredible lobby called APAC that's controlling everything, I would look at it. Where does it rank amongst other lobbies? And how does that. You know, how. Because if somebody's spending $100 million, it's a lot different from $3 million because money is going to make moves. Right. So if, if you have a social media, again, if somebody's paying somebody $7,000 to say something positive about a country, how much are other countries paying the adversaries? Those other countries having significantly more money, significantly more manpower. Because if you look at it down religious lines, there's a tiny little religion versus the second largest religion in the world. I mean, again, we're talking difference between like, I don't know, 15 million people versus a billion. More than a billion, 2 billion, you know, what's the difference between 15 million and 2 billion? It's about 2 billion. Yeah. It's a big. A billion is a thousand million. It's like a big magnitude order different. And so what do you. How can you make an argument that if you have a guy who's 64 and a guy that's 5 6, that the 56 guy is taller? You can say whatever you want, but you can see the numbers and the numbers don't lie. The numbers are the facts.

B (26:33)

Yeah. And it seems like the younger generation is really buying into the pro Palestine movement right now.

A (26:38)

Well, the pro Palestine movement has, was really started in the 1940s, between the 40s and 60s, because there was no, you know, there was no idea of an autonomous Palestinian state. Right. If you just look at the, the history and nothing. By the way, I'm not saying it shouldn't happen or should happen. I think there should be a Palestinian state. Nothing wrong with that. Like, you know, there's now a formed identity, there's a culture, There are people that can have their own identity, own that identity. I've got Palestinian folks that work in my company in the, in the Gulf region. And they're great people. They're like legitimately good people. I've got guys that, I've had Israelis in my company, great people. They're just people, like, they just want to live their lives, you know. But the Palestinian identity, you know, back when the country was formed, did not exist. It was what Gaza was Egypt. It was annexed by Egypt, it was occupied by Egypt, and the west bank was Trans Jordan, which was now the country of Jordan. And in 1970. Well, I mean, it happened a little before that 68 war, but about 1970, both Egypt and Transjordan abdicated their, let's say, ownership over those territories. So Transjordan renounced everybody's passports in the west bank and they became Jordan. Why was it called Transjordan? Because it was Transjordan. River. From the river. Right. So the Jordanians. Right. They received their country when in 19, what, 48, you had two groups of refugees in the Middle east. And, like, significant, like, groups of refugees, you had the Palestinian Arabs and the Palestinian Jews. And the Palestinian Jews did not come there in the 1940s, after World War II. You know, how many Jews came to Palestine after World War II, between World War II and 1992. So for the roughly 50 years between after World War II, until 1992, how many Jews came to Palestine?

B (28:21)

How many?

A (28:21)

About 130,000.

B (28:23)

Okay.

A (28:23)

It's like nothing. Yeah, it's not much because this. Because most of them were living in the former. A lot of them were killed. Most of them were living in the former Soviet Union. The Soviet Union didn't let them out. Now, in 92, about a million came to Israel from the Soviet Union because the Soviet Union collapsed and all the Jews got the hell out.

B (28:38)

Got it.

A (28:39)

Okay. How many of those millions stayed in Israel? Less than 10%, really. They used it to get, basically passports to the US And Canada. And they left Australia. And they left because it was. The state itself was so infantile at the time. Right. A lot of internal problems. You have the terrorist stuff going on. Like, they don't want to stay. They wanted to use it as a way to get out. Right. Okay. So. So the idea that, you know, these guys show up after World War II and take Palestinian land is not a real idea. Like, Jerusalem in the 1860s was already significantly, significantly more. It has significantly more Jewish inhabitants than anything else. So Tel Aviv, the same thing. Like, we just looked at the numbers, Right? We were just looking at numbers and trying to understand what was happening. There were two groups of refugees, and two countries were supposedly formed. One was Israel, one was Transjordan. Both formed in 1948, by the way. No. Transjordan declared independence, 1946. How did Transjordan declare independence 1946. And who are those people? Well, they were the Arabs living in the region, and their leadership is not from that region at all. The Al Saud family in Saudi Arabia won a revolution in 1923. Basically coup. The government took over the country. It was Kingdom of Hejaz at the time. And the Hashemite family, which was the ruling family of the Saudis, you know, that land for many generations ended up kind of stateless. And so the Hashemites were given a state called Transjordan. So the people ruling that country weren't really from there. They were just like, well, you need. You are a royal family. We'll give you this place. The British made that decision, right? At the same time, Israel was given a state as well. So there's these two groups of refugees, right? The Arabs did not accept that solution. They did not want the existence of a Jewish state in that place, as tiny as it was. And so war broke out. Israel won the war. The Arabs called Nagba, the Israelis called the war of independence. And unfortunately, or fortunately, I don't know which side you want to take. The only thing that's more cruel than a war is not letting somebody finish a war, because then it continues.

B (30:31)

Right?

A (30:31)

Makes sense.

B (30:32)

Yeah.

A (30:32)

A war without a winner. It's like, you know, when you see two fighters beefing in the ufc, if there is a controversial ending to the fight, they're going to keep beefing.

B (30:39)

Right.

A (30:39)

You need a clear winner, and Israel has not been allowed to win that war. And so you have. You still have to this day, a group of, you know, a group of people that remain stateless because their entire state has been weaponized just to destroy their neighbors. That's all they want to do. Interesting story about that. I think of people worth noting at the exact same time as there was a British mandate that was being split in the Middle east, there was a second British mandate that was being split in India because India was also under British administration until 48. And the Indian, The Hindus in India wanted to maintain the sovereignty over their entire country, and the Muslims in India wanted a state called Pakistan. And so the exact same thing happened, and a new state was carved out of India called Pakistan for a group of people that had a different cultural identity than the other people living in that land. And yet we don't see a lot of attacks on Pakistan and social media, do we?

B (31:28)

Never seen one.

A (31:29)

Exactly the same situation, by the way. Like, there was no. There was no Pakistan state. It was completely made up, but it was made up by People with a cultural identity that decided to form. To form a state within the state of India. And that's Pakistan today. Wow.

B (31:42)

I don't know that.

A (31:43)

Right. And you know, it's funny how another interesting argument I see, I'm just looking at data here, right. It's like, oh, you know, these Jews are all a bunch of inbreds. And I see this data. I think it's the funniest argument because Pakistan has a 63, 64% rate of consanguous marriage to first cousins.

B (31:59)

Crazy.

A (32:00)

Over 172. Over 172 million Pakistanis today are the products of first cousin marriage. 172 million.

B (32:09)

Nuts.

A (32:09)

Right. And again, people want to point at one thing and they attack it. And yet there's another thing that's exactly the thing they're supposedly against, but it's not the thing they're attacking. And that's. And that's misinformation in a nutshell.

B (32:21)

Yeah, Yeah. I just saw Andrew Wilson debate about the cousin marriage. The IQ average IQ is a lot lower when you inbred like that.

A (32:28)

It's very scary. It's, it's not only it is a lot lower, it's also concentrated towards a lower mean. And, and if you actually look at the curves and distributions, what you realize is something like 15% of those populations are roughly the IQ of a fairly intelligent chimp. Wow. So when you have. And so I'm not going to talk about specific examples, but you do have that as a big problem in the Middle Eastern region when you have countries with, or regions with very high rates of contanguous marriage. What you also have are completely different value systems and how they solve for problems. Now imagine if you're living in Las Vegas today, right? And right next door you have California. And like 60% of Californians are inbred and they're trying to kill you all the time. You would, you would have a very different life experience. But also negotiating with that crowd would be very different. Running a democracy in that crowd would be basically impossible.

B (33:15)

Yeah.

A (33:15)

Because. Because people would just fall for, for simple tricks. And that's just what happens.

B (33:19)

Yeah. Do you see an end in sight or do you see this dragging on for many years?

A (33:23)

To be honest with you, I'm not sure that I care. What I care about is where I live, which is I live in the West.

B (33:28)

Yeah.

A (33:28)

And what I care about is the values of the west and that we have an opportunity to pursue our liberties and freedoms. That we have an opportunity to build wealth and to pursue Our goals and our dreams. And I see this pro Palestine movement as a vehicle in order to subvert the West's ambitions to be the greatest in the world. And I'll share a story. I was in Saudi Arabia of some Saudi friends hanging out, eating some good food. And I asked my friend, I was like, hey, how come I don't see any. Like, we're actually eating food at a Palestinian restaurant, Kanufa Delicious. And I go, hey, how come I don't see any, you know, paraphernalia here? No flags, no scarves. And he goes, oh, you wave one of those in Saudi, they kick you out of the country. You're in Gaza tomorrow.

B (34:04)

Whoa.

A (34:05)

I had an employee, I had a worker that worked for us in our Dubai office. Fantastic guy. Palestinian family has been living in Dubai 30 years. His brother was caught making some Palestine statements on Facebook. His whole family got deported.

B (34:17)

What?

A (34:18)

His dad had a business, everything. They've been residents of the UAE for over 30 years. Him, siblings, mother, everybody in a van out of the country, shipped out. So this is really fascinating, right in the Middle east, like the Saudis, the Emiratis, and by the way, what the Emiratis have built is incredible. Like, the UAE is just like the greatest place on earth, hands down, right now. What they have built, they see the Palestinian cause, and, you know, I use the word cause quite loosely because it's really just a political bifurcation to, you know, empower communists. That's all it is there. They see it as such a threat to the ambitions and dreams of their states that they ban all of that. And yet we in the west allow it. Wow. Like, people don't know that. People don't know that, like, the Palestinian flag is banned in Saudi Arabia.

B (35:03)

No idea.

A (35:03)

It's banned in the UAE Every. It's banned in Kuwait, by the way, because they try to overthrow Kuwait, right? They don't want them in Syria. They don't want them in Lebanon. They don't want them in Jordan. The Jordanians, actually, everybody in the west bank had Jordanian passports. And so until 1980. And in 1980, King Hussein dissolved the parliament, said, we're taking all the passports away. And so the west bank was just Jordan. Now it's. It's Palestine somehow, because. Because all the countries surrounding them understood that they have a very big problem. And that problem is fundamentalism. And it's. And it actualizes as terrorism. And so they said, we don't want that in our region. And they completely banned it, got rid of it. And so where do all the people that were, that were funneling this ideology goes, they moved to Belgium, they moved to France, they're showing up in Canada, they're coming to the United States, they're spending the money here because the Qataris can, can't pay off the Saudis to start to create this sort of a narrative because they know that it will destroy the country. It goes to.

B (35:57)

Holy crap. I did not know all this. I've never seen someone take this angle honestly on social media.

A (36:02)

Well, the thing is it's out there, but it's drowned out because again, you know, people are like, oh, the Jews control the social media. Really? Then why is it like all social media anti Jew? Like that makes no sense. Right? You even saw Harvey Weinstein talk about, with Candace Owens, you know, where Candace was like, who bought all the movies, who owns all the book? And he's like, the Qataris bought us out. And she's like, oh really? Of course, of course. Because the people of the money can buy the things with their money. Right. Again, everybody's attacking a small country that doesn't have any money to actually conduct any sort of foreign influence. But it's so easy to attack them because there's so few of them and they have so little money to spend on this kind of stuff that there's just not enough voice, you know, coming back and talking about it. You have again, a population of 2 billion. That's against 15 million.

B (36:40)

Yeah.

A (36:41)

You have unlimited money through oil in Qatar versus what the heck does Israel export? Like water filtration systems.

B (36:48)

Just tech.

A (36:49)

Right, Tech and water, water filtration system. Seriously?

B (36:52)

They make water filtration?

A (36:53)

Well, because they have no natural source of water there, so they convert seawater into drinking water.

B (36:57)

Really?

A (36:57)

And they teach other countries to do it.

B (36:58)

Oh wow. Yeah, California needs that.

A (37:01)

California's got its own problem.

B (37:03)

They needed that during the fire.

A (37:04)

So again, a really interesting, a really interesting perspective on this is just like how effective the disinformation has been in order to actually the, the reason behind it has always been the same. And it's come, it came from the Soviet Union, still being used by Russia today and probably China too. But the whole point behind it has just been to destroy the West. How do you destroy the West? Well, you can't invade America by force.

B (37:24)

Right.

A (37:25)

It's not going to happen. So what you do is you take over its institutions and then you replace this demography and that's exactly what's been happening.

B (37:31)

Yeah, they took over the universities. Right.

A (37:32)

And that's by the way, how Soviet Union was formed as well. The people that were on the communists and the. And by the way, the communist people, you know, that actually study history. It's great books about it. The communists, when they took the Soviet Union, they didn't have people's support. It was not a people's revolution at all. That was completely retroactive history replacement. It was a small group of extremely violent, violent terrorists. Like Lenin and his crew were incredibly violent. They murdered, like, without any sort of consideration. They just. They took the country by force. And then the first thing they do is they start to change the universities and they start putting their people into educational institutions to raise the next generation of loyal followers. Wow. And this is exactly the same play that's been compromising. That's been compromising the United States because we've seen the institutions completely turn. Like, there's no reason for universities to support philosophy that's completely adversarial to American values. Communism is not an American value. And yet what are the leftists all want? Mamdani.

B (38:30)

Yeah. Yeah. The female Gen Z vote was 94%, I believe, from Mamdani.

A (38:35)

80% of women over 40.

B (38:36)

Crazy.

A (38:37)

Yes. And by the way, this was already started a long time ago. I was saying this 10 years ago. This was actually very interesting. So women before they have children. This is, by the way, very documented political science type stuff. Women before they have children are overwhelmingly voting left.

B (38:49)

Yeah.

A (38:50)

Once women have children, they start to vote. Right. Women become a lot more conservative when they have children. And the reason psychologically behind it's kind of wild.

B (38:57)

I'd love to know.

A (38:58)

Well, so I think. I think, you know, without citing a study, we can understand that women do have a maternalistic instinct that men don't have.

B (39:04)

Yeah.

A (39:05)

Because women raise children. Right. Men operate in a different domain from women. Primarily. We have violence as a way to resolve conflict between ourselves.

B (39:13)

Right.

A (39:13)

And the way to prove that we have violence as a way to resolve conflict between ourselves is when women are friends. They say things like, your hair looks great today. You look amazing. When men are friends, we're busting each other's balls.

B (39:23)

Yeah.

A (39:23)

Why are we busting each other's balls? Because we're testing to see if it's safe. And it's a nonviolent environment. So I'll say, sean, you piece of crap. And you're like a few motherfuckers, you know, that's how we're gonna connect. That's how we bond. But the reason we do it is we're is we're pushing our boundaries out to show that, hey, it's safe here, because we're not gonna fight. Does that make sense? That's why men bond on insulting each other. And so we have these completely different domains. So war is the domain of men. And so when. When look at it, you know, going, let's say 50,000 years of human development as adversaries invade your, let's say, town or village, what do they do with all the men and the boys get off them. They're done. The women stay honest concubines. Okay? That's literally been the booty. And the spoils of war is you take your enemy's women. Right. And this is undebatable historically. Right. So the women, even though they have a horrendous outcome for themselves, they don't have the same biological risk. The biological risk for men is that your bloodline stops forever because you and your kids are dead. Your boys are killed, Right? But for the women, their bloodline continues. They just. They reproduce with the winners. And you actually see this, like on a not war scale, hypergamous nature. Like, women wait at the finish line and bang the winners.

B (40:30)

Right?

A (40:30)

So in war, women don't have the same kind of a risk as men have. I'm not saying the outcome is optimal at all, but that's. It's a different risk. So the next phase of that, what happens when women have sons? Well, now they're. They're at risk. So now when women have sons, they start to become a lot more politically conservative because they want their sons to survive.

B (40:46)

Wow.

A (40:46)

Now their skin is in the game. Right.

B (40:48)

So it's a biological.

A (40:49)

Correct. So if I was to destroy a democratic nation, the first thing I would do is I would encourage all the women not to get married. And by the way, what are we seeing in trends of that in the last 30 years?

B (40:58)

Feminism.

A (40:58)

Yeah, exactly. Women aren't getting. Feminism is completely. Is completely conflated with communism. Completely. Right.

B (41:04)

Really?

A (41:04)

Of course. Because, you know, there's obviously some advantages. Let's say, you know, I have daughters too. It's great. It's fantastic. There are some political, you know, and life advantages to live in a western world. However, when women trade their pursuit of family for pursuit of a career and they delay getting having children, they also stay considerably more economically left, which, sorry, politically left. Which is also why one of the most successful industries in the last 30 years has been the advent of. Of pet shops and pet food and pet care and pet jewelry and pet clothing. Because that impetus, that biological impetus for maternalistic instinct doesn't go away. It just turns from a very specific, you know, here's my kids and I need them to survive to a general welfare of everyone in society and animals and everything else.

B (41:45)

Wow.

A (41:45)

So the first step to destroying a democratic society, if you want to. If you want to, you know, bring in this sort of an ideology, is just to get the women to stop having kids.

B (41:53)

So there's a long game being played here.

A (41:55)

Communism has always been a multigenerational game, 100%, because commies are not good fighters. Right?

B (42:01)

Right.

A (42:02)

They're not operating a domain of violence. They're operating in the world of lawfare and supply subversion. Right. And so what. What. How do you. How do you take over a university? You don't go there with guns and. And, you know, machetes. You. You put your own people in there. Over time, you. You. You start to condition. You're subverting.

B (42:16)

Yeah.

A (42:17)

And this is, again, the whole situation online with the Palestine Israel movement is that a lot of the information you see is not designed to educate, is designed to subvert. One great example of that is the famous word genocide, which, you know. And I would ask this interesting question, right? Like, do words have specific meanings or not?

B (42:33)

Like, they have definitions.

A (42:34)

I guess they should. Well, let me ask you this. Is there a difference between a man and a woman?

B (42:37)

Yeah.

A (42:37)

Is there a biological difference?

B (42:39)

Yeah.

A (42:39)

So you're going to lose a few followers by saying that because there's a legitimate class of people that are weaponizing this and those idiots to believe that women and men are biologically the same and therefore one can be the other, which is factually untrue. But keep in mind, we just spent like a decade in the States, right, debating this idea of a man and woman are the same thing. Why do we need that debate? The first thing you learn when you're like a child is that there's boys and girls. We know that fact. End of story. Okay, fine. So we know that words have meanings. Being a man is different. Being a woman. Now we're putting gender pronouns into stuff. Why? Well, because I can choose my pronoun, but you're a man or you're a woman. Again, all you're doing is you're starting to subvert truth and erode it from its roots and foundations. Right. So if words have meaning, the next question I would ask is, okay, like, do we punish people for conducting crime?

B (43:22)

Yeah.

A (43:22)

Okay. Are the punishments different based on the crime being conducted?

B (43:25)

Yep.

A (43:26)

Okay, so murder and theft would have a different punishment. Okay. Is murder different from assault?

B (43:31)

Yeah.

A (43:32)

Okay, so we have a word for assault and we have a word for murder, and they mean different things. Is genocide and war the same thing? No, they should be different. Right. There should be a way. If we're going to be accusing somebody of conducting some kind of a misdeed, there should be a way for us to differentiate between the meaning of words. Right. Okay. Innocent and guilty are not the same thing. Man and woman are not the same thing. They're just different things. Okay. So if there's a word, a word called genocide, then that word must represent something. So what should that word represent? And it should be a very well defined word because then you should understand what's happening. Like, did a theft take place or did a murder take place? That's a great question.

B (44:08)

Right, Right.

A (44:09)

Did you have dinner or did you have an anvil fall on your head? These are. These are completely different things. Right. You need to have definitions of words and meanings to those words. So if we were to say there's such a thing as war, would you agree that war is a real thing?

B (44:22)

Yeah.

A (44:22)

Okay. It exists. Is genocide a real thing? I mean, it exists. 100% it's real. It exists. But are they the same?

B (44:29)

No.

A (44:30)

So the way that we would look at that argument is like this. Can you have a war without a genocide? Yes or no? Yeah, of course you can. Right. We can think of the War of 1812. We can think of, you know, the American Revolution, and these are wars that did not involve the genocide. Can you have a war that's concurrent with a genocide at the same time? Concurrent meaning that it's happening as. As well as a genocide at the same time?

B (44:52)

Yeah, right.

A (44:52)

Of course, World War II, we had the gen. You know, the Holocaust, which was a genocide in World War II. And we'll talk about how do we measure that and World War I. You know, Armenians were quite badly genocide under the Ottoman Empire, by the way. So there was definitely a concurrent genocide and war. You can also have a genocide without a war, right?

B (45:08)

Really?

A (45:08)

Of course. Well, let's say, for example, it's happening in Nigeria today. I mean, you're seeing a genus. There's no. There's no, you know, Christian army in Nigeria. They're just coming in and killing Christians in Nigeria. There's a legitimate genocide. You can 100% have a genocide without a war. The Uyghur Muslims in China, I can make a very strong case, are under genocide because there's no war against China by the Uyghur Muslims. They're just not Liked by the community. And that's, you know, not by the Communist Party. So we definitely can have a war and a genocide. So how do you measure that? Okay, very simple to break this down. Will you have any casualties in a war? Will people die in a war? By definition, by the way, if nobody died, was there a war? No, we call it something else. We call it a cold war. We might call it something. But we don't call it a war. There necessarily have to be people dying for there to be a war. Otherwise, what the heck is it? Right. Like a social media slurring is not a war. But a war has people dying. And do combatants. Do soldiers die in a war?

B (45:58)

Yeah.

A (45:59)

Okay, so we've defined that combatants die in a war. Now here's the most important question. Do civilians die in a war? Yes or no?

B (46:05)

Oh, that's a good one. Typically throughout history. Yes.

A (46:08)

So throughout history, we actually have very good measure of this. Throughout history, the civilian to combatant death ratio in war is nine to one. Nine civilians die for every soldier in wars throughout history.

B (46:17)

I didn't know that.

A (46:18)

I'll repeat that. Nine civilians die in. Throughout history. The mean war is nine civilians per combatant. Right. So war has devastating secondary effects. These are called externalities. One of the externalities of war is that civilians die, and it doesn't seem to be particularly preventable. Like it could be potentially mitigated. We'll talk about that. But throughout history, there have been many, many wars. Okay. Doesn't seem that civilians can escape the horrors of war. Okay. By the way, if you look at drone warfare, the civilian casualty rate is actually higher. It's 12 to 1. 12 civilians per combatant? Yeah.

B (46:53)

You think it'd be lower with drones?

A (46:54)

No, but drones typically hit, you know, targeted, like, parties and things like that. Weddings and all that kind of stuff.

B (47:00)

That makes sense. Yeah.

A (47:01)

Yeah. And drones are typically designed to conduct very accurate targeted strikes, and those tend to have people in them that are not combatants. Right. So the. So we now know that there is a measure that defines war. And the average measure for war is nine civilians die for every single combatant killed. So if you have a ratio of like 100 civilians per one combatant, I can make the case that's a genocide. That's a very high ratio compared to. Again, we have to compare it to what. Compared to what?

B (47:30)

Previous genocides?

A (47:31)

Yeah. Even during the war that. Before the ceasefire was enacted in whatever form was enacted, the reported civilian to combatant ratio in Gaza was 1 to 1.

B (47:43)

Wow.

A (47:44)

1 to 1. It's a factor of 9x lower civilian death rate than the historically average number of civilian deaths in a war. So the question I would ask is these are accurate numbers. Anybody can look them up. Nobody's hiding this information. It's just people are not aware of comparison comparing. Right. Well, I mean, one of the maybe positive silver linings in this, and if there is such a thing, is that at least people are starting to understand how horrific and awful war is. If you think Gaza is terrible because one civilian is dying for every combatant, imagine the average war where nine civilians are dying for every combatant. Okay. It's insane, right? But you can't make the claim that one to one is worse than nine to one.

B (48:22)

Yeah.

A (48:23)

And so by that very measurable metric, which can be very visibly observed, you understand that what they're taking this word genocide and they're bastardizing it in order to remove the meaning of the word itself.

B (48:34)

Yeah.

A (48:35)

That's the goal. Right. Is to. This is to diminish the truth, to diminish the definitions. Just like the man and woman thing. It's all part of the same confluent communist agenda. Does that make sense?

B (48:44)

No. It does. You've basically debunked the genocide term because one to one ratio is not a genocide. Right?

A (48:48)

Correct. It still sucks. It's still horrible. It's not. It's not optimal for anybody. Right. Now if you look at the October 7th attack and you had a basically like 1200 civilians killed and like four combatants, like I don't know, it's like a single number digit of combatants because nobody was prepared. And we can talk about why that happened, whatever, I don't know. But the bottom line is that actually meets the definition of genocide quite clearly. Not only. And by the way, genocide also has a factor of intent under international law. You can look at the numbers on that. The intent of that particular attack was to attack civilian institutions. Music festival and some. And some farms had nothing to do with attacking military installations.

B (49:26)

Right.

A (49:27)

On that day, 3,000 combatants joined by another 3,000 or so called civilians. Army of about 6,000. But let's even say 3,000 people entered the country of Israel. That's a larger army than what the British used to conquer the Falkland Islands. Wow. And they were better armed. So there was a legitimate military attack on a sovereign state. Now I can't imagine what would happen if another state had conducted a military attack on the United States specifically targeting civilian institutions with the goal of maximal murder possible. And how Americans would react to that. And if the death Rate on the other side of that would still be one to one. Because keep in mind this attack on October 7th was a larger attack on a per capita scale than the Pearl harbor attack that occurred from Japan to the United States. And the US replied with two nuclear bombs. And what do you think the death ratio was that for civilians versus Conduct?

B (50:22)

Can't even imagine.

A (50:23)

Exactly. Right. So, so we, I'm not saying that like one, there's a good thing happening here. Of course that's not the case. The point is that if we're going to talk about uncovering the truth for those that care, and most people watching this channel will not care. They just, you know, they just want to be. They just want to be morally justified in their life and feel like they're good people, which is a great way to exploit people, is to let them feel like they're being good and doing something good. All those people won't care, but the truth is still the truth.

B (50:48)

Yeah.

A (50:48)

And that's the ratio. Those are the numbers.

B (50:50)

Yeah. People have been so conditioned in today's social media society.

A (50:53)

Right, well, and that's an interesting to. You know, again, I'm just looking at numbers. I've gone, I went kind of deep on this. I'm not Israeli, I have no ties to the country at all. For me, it's just looking at like the factual stuff and seeing how it's impacting our society. And people are like, you know, they're calling Israel no illegitimate state. Okay? It was formed in 1948. Is 1948 new first state? No, it's not at all. It's completely like Saudi Arabia. 23, Syria, 46, Lebanon, 46, Iran. The current iteration of Iran was formed in 1979. Saudi Arabia was just a bunch of disconnected tribes and kingdoms that sort of formulate all together. Jordan became the current state of China 1980, but before that 1946. I mean, these are completely normal numbers. Foreign countries are formed. There's nothing illegitimate about that number. Unless you're saying every single country everywhere is illegitimate, which. The far left will absolutely make that argument. What, Pakistan, what? 47, 48? Of course the leftists will say that borders are fake. We don't need borders because they don't believe in countries and they're not saying this country is illegitimate. They want every country to be legitimate. But in terms of what's normal for a country, it's perfectly in line with what's normal for countries.

B (52:00)

Thanks for shedding all this, man. I, I've honestly never heard a lot of the things you said today you really do your research. I could tell you approach it from a historical point of view with numbers, with facts.

A (52:09)

It's really cool and it's interesting because people argue with their emotions, and that's fine. I'm not making a case for what's right and wrong. I'm not making a case for whatever. I'm showing exactly the data that's there.

B (52:19)

Yeah.

A (52:20)

Now, of course, if I do make a case is that the truth is important, because once you don't have truth, once you don't have exact historical basis with numbers referencing for truth, then what you lose is any semblance of. Well, I'll tell you this. You lose. Do you know why it's such an important thing to attack truth for the left? Why? There's a reason for it. It's very interesting. Okay, so we can all relate to the story. You as a kid, you do something wrong, and then your parents punish you. Yeah. You're like, why? And then you're like, just because I said it's like, but, dad, why? No, because I said that's how it's going to be. You have an experience with your parents. I think we all have. Right. When you remove truth, then all you can respond to is authoritative power. That's it. That's it.

B (53:00)

Interesting.

A (53:01)

When you remove. When you remove the argument of truth, and this has been a very. A very common theme amongst communist regimes, is they remove what truth really is. And when you remove truth, all you respond to is power. Because what if you don't know? Like, this was a big problem in the Soviet Union is the rules changed all the time. And there's a great story about it. There's three guys in a Soviet Gulag, and the first guys go. The second guy, he goes, what are you in the Gulag for? Gulag was like a Soviet prison. He goes, oh, I said some bad things about Romanov. Okay. And then the second guy goes to the first guy, why are you here? He goes, I said some good things about Romanov. And they go to the third guy, why are you here? He goes, I'm Romanov.

B (53:34)

That's funny, right?

A (53:36)

But the point of the joke was that you never knew what was true, what wasn't, and so you would only respond to government directives so that you don't end up in the gulag. And this is the attack on the gender ideology. This is the attack on the historical facts regarding the Middle East. It's all an attack on truth as a fundamental source of our being able to base our Decisions on anything at all. So when you say, oh, APAC is this big scary thing, it's like, well, yeah, $3 million compared to a billion. Who cares? But when you have no relative, you know, no relative measure to compare it to, you don't actually know what's true, right?

B (54:05)

Yeah, people don't compare. You know, they'll just see these big numbers and be like, what the fuck?

A (54:11)

Scary, right?

B (54:12)

Yeah.

A (54:12)

Like, an interesting example is, you know, like, for example, the left will attack millionaires. What percentage of Americans are millionaires, by the way?

B (54:18)

Is it 8%?

A (54:18)

It's 11%.

B (54:19)

11%.

A (54:20)

One in ten. Wow. One in ten.

B (54:22)

That's a lot.

A (54:22)

That's a lot. And people are like, that's shocking to me. Right?

B (54:25)

Yeah.

A (54:26)

So again, not understanding, not having a relative measure, 11% of Americans are also yacht owners. Wow. It's a fact.

B (54:33)

That's crazy.

A (54:33)

Again, but I don't know anybody with a yacht. Okay, but that doesn't mean that the statistic is falsified. Right. It's just. That is what it is.

B (54:38)

Yeah.

A (54:39)

And so a lot of people, again, will come with emotion and get very angry and blah, blah, blah. And it's like, look, I have no skin in the game on that. I'm looking from the perspective of the west again, as an entrepreneur. I really, really like what's happened in the Gulf region. I have property in Dubai. I love it there. I think it's one of the greatest. I think what they've accomplished through a benevolent dictatorship should be the model for every civilization. It's just incredible. Done. Incredible. I really like. This will be controversial. I've really liked what the Saudis have been doing. I have. I've been there a few times. I see their vision, I understand what they're doing, and it's great. The way that they're bringing sport into the country is amazing. You know, it's unifying and it's also creating an economic channel for future entrepreneurial endeavors. It's increasing people's ability to pursue their dreams. It's amazing. It's great. And all of those places, ban this crap that's blowing up in the Western world. And what's going to happen in 30 years, possibly we are going to be the new third world in the West.

B (55:37)

Holy crap.

A (55:38)

And those guys over there are going to be as they are already starting to. They're taking all the best people. They're banning all of this BS with the terror. They don't allow any terrorists into their places. It's safe to be there regardless of what color religion, whatever you are. And it's not even a topic of discussion. You just live your life and do your best. And that used to be the American dream.

B (55:54)

Used to be. Now I can't even pump my gas at night. Yeah, it's that bad? Yeah, it's that bad. Well, Dimitri, anything else you want to close off with here, man, that was really, really awesome. All right, well, let me know your thoughts, guys, in the comments. This was a really important one. I think I learned a lot personally. So thanks for your time, man. Let's have some fun at F1.

A (56:14)

Hey, for all the listeners. Go make some money.

B (56:16)

Go make some money. Peace, guys. I hope you guys are enjoying the show. Please don't forget to like and subscribe. It helps the show a lot with the algorithm. Thank you.