Welcome to Keep an Eye, Don't tread on anyone in the
Libertarian Institute. Today, I am joined by Angela
McArdle, the Chairwoman of the Libertarian Party.
We're going to be talking about what the LP stands for along
with the Rage Against the War Machine rally.
Angela, tell us about this rally.
Hey, thanks for having me on. So you know February the
beginning of this year the Libertarian party and the
People's Party which is like a left wing populist group got
together and held a big anti war rally And it was sort of the the
flagship you know anti war movement like kick off we we we
said you know what we want to reunite everybody.
We want to get together, we want to kick off the the anti war
movement again. It seems like it's sort of
fizzled out a little bit and everybody's off in their own
corners. So we had a great rally.
It was Memorial Day. I'm sorry, it was Presidents Day
weekend at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC and we're
doing it again. We're doing it again.
Rage Against the War Machine. Two Point O is coming.
Defeat the Deep State. And we're going to be bringing
everybody together to to talk about the relationship between
the Deep state and the war machine.
You were on the Joe Walsh podcast.
I thought you did an excellent job there and he had, to my
surprise actually said oh Oh no Angela, I'm anti war too with
all the confidence in the world. So all right, here we are saying
we're anti war and he's anti war along with Bill Kristol by the
way who only supports interventions because those are
going to, you know, stop future wars from coming to fruition.
Help us narrow this down. What does it mean to be anti
war? So you know, from a libertarian
perspective, I'm a I'm a non interventionist.
It should be fairly simple, right?
Like I don't want to wage war on other countries.
The National Defense should literally be defensive and a lot
of people split hairs over it and they say, well we gotta, you
know, we gotta annihilate them before they annihilate us.
From my perspective that has just not been found to be true.
We should have our troops here and they should only be reserved
for an emergency imminent threat on US soil.
That's what it means to be anti war from my perspective.
One of the things that I learned from people like Thomas Sowell
is it's not what should be done, but who should decide what is to
be done so well. Yes, we both support, you know,
defending the homeland from aggressors, both foreign and
domestic. Any idea that revolves around
delegating this responsibility to politicians who face no
consequence, basically no consequence at all for being
wrong. And they're spending other
people's money and they claim the right to conscript with the
Selective Service Act, and they have access to a central bank.
It seems like anyone who genuinely cares about National
Defense would want politicians to be the very last people in
line to be responsible for ushering in this alleged safety.
When it comes to alternatives to going to war, what are some
things that come to mind as far as Could it be diplomacy?
Could it be free trade? Could it be private defence?
What do you think about in that case?
I think diplomacy and free trade are are the two of the most
critical things to to peaceful foreign policy and slowly
removing yourself from entangling alliances as well.
It's a real mess how we're involved with NATO, you know the
UN, although it's not as war mongering as NATO, it does
present international entangling alliances and complications.
Foreign aid, ending foreign aid is a really big one too.
We should just not be involved in other countries military
operations, as when we get rid of that we solve, I think, a lot
of these problems. I was fortunate enough to sit
down with the campaign advisor of one of the Great China Hawks
that is running as a Republican. And I said, why are you such a
hawk on China? You admire Richard Nixon, who
went to Beijing and shook hands with Chairman Mao Zedong.
Are you telling me we can't shake hands with President Xi?
There was a formal alliance with Joseph Stalin, whose crimes in
Ukraine far exceeded Vladimir Putin.
Not that I'm a Putin apologist, but it's really incredible to
say, All right, yeah, we can have a alliance with Stalin.
We can be friends with Chairman Mao.
Nixon also shook hands with Emperor Hirohito in the the 70s,
who was the emperor of Japan during the Second World War.
But, you know, when it comes to Putin, and she, of course we
can't. Why is it that there's such a,
there's such a dichotomy between who the elites, you know, claim
to say is that is a a crazy psychopath who cannot be
negotiated with. And also, well, we're good
friends with Mohammed bin Salomon in Saudi Arabia, but can
you help us square that circle? I mean, I think we've gotten
ourselves into a lot of entangling alliances and we
think that we need to be the world police and the enemy of my
enemy is, is my friend. That's what we see going on with
with Iran and and Israel and and Saudi Arabia.
But more so than that, I I think that we don't have politicians
who have the stones to do the courageous thing.
It's we we have this problem where we want to export
democracy and we want to sort of rule different parts of the
world with brute force. And you make a lot more friends.
You know, it's it's very like, it's like how to win friends and
influence people, right? One of the reasons I think that
Donald Trump did a good job with his negotiations with North
Korea is that he was willing to actually treat those people with
a little bit of respect. And I don't like what's happened
to the people in North Korea. I I think that's atrocious.
I don't want anybody living under tyrannical, you know,
poverty conditions, but we want to influence people with, you
know, a positive message and being their friend and try to
win them over. We don't want to threaten to
nuke them off the planet. I just that's just not the way
to to spread influence. That's so important because my
general anti war position is the costs are extraordinarily high,
usually in civilian death, civilian trauma, civilians
getting their limbs blown off, soldiers dying.
And two, the consequences are so unforeseen that Barack Obama
wrote a book allegedly titled A Promised Land.
And he talks about how, you know, we had this great idea
about going into Libya and removing Colonel Gaddafi in
2011. It cost us a fraction of what we
were spending in Afghanistan and Iraq in like a single day in
those places we spent on this entire operation, and we removed
the dictator. And then on the like 10 pages
later, he goes on to say. Unfortunately, due to a lack of
a historical president with regard to democratic
institutions, the results were less desirable than we had.
Planned less desirable. LIFG Al Qaeda in Libya ended up
taking over that. They filled the vacuum, the very
power vacuum that they say, you know, us libertarians are going
to create the status actually create.
It's nuts. They talk about regime change
and like mass murder and death, like how I might say like, oh
man, I tried a new recipe and it didn't work out.
Like, it's not like meatloaf. It's, you know, thousands,
sometimes millions of people's lives.
It's not like, oh, I guess we'll get take out to today.
It's really, I don't, I don't really understand fully that
level of hubris. Like, I've never felt that
disconnected from the rest of humanity and that above them all
to just kind of thumb my nose and be like, sorry we murdered
you, you know, it just didn't work out.
We'll we'll try the same thing in some other country and maybe
it'll work out for those people. Well, they always come to their
senses when we're talking about a domestic conflict.
They'll say, you know, oh, you cannot use violence, which,
which I agree with, you know, so you can't just go storming into
the Capitol and demanding change and all this stuff, 'cause
that's just, that's barbaric. By the way, if we don't like
what another regime is doing, we'll have, you know, dozens of
bombing campaigns for maybe a decade, kill tons of civilians.
Well, one second ago it was really bad to use violence with
regard to achieving our ends. But now it's oh, we can never
appease anyone. And if any regime does anything
we don't like, well, civilians aren't really a matter of
course. It it's just so sad.
OK, so all this we can pin on things like the media and the
schooling system when it comes to what the LP is doing to
combat the narratives that the media pushes forward, along with
state education. What are some good alternatives?
Oh man. Well, you know, we're we're
pushing right now this thing called Operation Warhawk removal
where we have candidates who are running at the federal level who
are running principled anti war messaging campaigns and are
going to be attacking really hard their competition during
their competition's primary season.
You know, the idea is we want to not just attack you, you know,
at the polls in the general election, we want to hit you
where it hurts with your with your fellow party members, with
the people who are supposed to be on your side.
So that's something that we're doing right now to try to to get
the word out right. It's not just attacking other
candidates, but it's also going to be an aggressive information
campaign, radio ads on conservative talk radio and so
on and so forth. Okay.
And when it comes to reaching the younger generation, I love
books like have you read the Tuttle Twin series or anything
that people like Connor Boy I have done.
I absolutely love those. And it's great because it's not
a it's not too direct where you see what's going on.
You can really give someone the book for their kids and they
enjoy the vast majority of it. And then it's really at the end
where the lesson is extracted when it comes to making sure
that the state doesn't have a monopoly on the minds of the
young. What are some areas you like to
focus on there? I I think, you know, peaceful
parenting is something that's really important.
I have AI have a toddler. We have, we have Tuttle toddlers
books, which are pretty cool, the little hard cardboard books.
One of the things that I think the Republicans just
consistently lose on is youth outreach.
And so we have had a concerted effort to do some more college
outreach and high school outreach from the LP, trying to
get people to go into schools and talk with, you know,
political classes, economics classes, history classes.
You'll find that a lot of people have never heard of things like
the whole little more they don't know about the crimes of Joseph
Stalin. You know, we're just trying to
engage young people. I would, I would also encourage
and love to see a lot of young people attend our rally.
One of the things that the Libertarian Party has been
trying to do in the last couple of years as we go through a lot
of changes and reform, is to make the party more family
friendly and not let the libertarianism be something
that's like siloed off and reserved just for adults.
I think there's a whole like wealth of knowledge that you can
share with your children at a pace that you feel comfortable
with. You know, like you don't have to
necessarily talk about mass murder and things like that.
You can talk about self ownership and personal
responsibility and non violence. I think that's a great place to
start. You can just tell the kids, hey,
you know what the teacher told you about Don't hit, don't
steal. Yeah, OK Don't have any double
standards for that principle. Don't have this major gaping
exception for a group of people called government.
If I may do a shameless plug for my new book, Domestic
Imperialism 9 Reasons I Left Progressivism, there are two
main things that got me to leave progressivism and become a
libertarian. The first thing was thinking
that Progressivism had something to do with being really
compassionate. Once you really see what the
progressive is doing, what they're actually engaged in is
putting massive obligations on strangers through the state in
order to achieve their end. Which, whether or not, you know,
the War on Poverty solves poverty or not, it's not like we
get any apologies or any refunds or any retractions.
And then the second thing was I thought that the way to empower
people was to give them one vote every four years between 2
politicians. Turns out the way to actually
empower people is to give them economic freedom.
When As far as things you've learned as chair of the
Libertarian Party, what are some great ways to communicate to
progressives? And then we'll get into
conservatives. But let's just start with the
progressive mindset. What have you learned as far as
effective communication tactics? I work with a lot of people on
the left, you know, like this rally is a left right coalition
and I've worked with with people on the left through Food Not
Bombs and and other interesting little like left wing anarchist
movements and I think voluntarism and just showing how
private organizations, sometimes people get a little bit
triggered if you say private charity, but voluntary actions,
right. Individuals can come together
and and work together and and make like real positive change.
I really do think that it just starts with like the human
connection to, you know, sometimes yelling at people on
the Internet is not the way to to win friends and and influence
people showing them, you know, proof of concept working
together. That's genuinely how you can
change minds. There was an interesting part in
your discussion with Caleb Maupin where you had said
something to the extent of how people should be able to achieve
their ends in life and this would also extend to something
medically related. So you shouldn't necessarily
need a license in order for two consenting adults to engage in,
you know, anything medically related.
You can go based off certifications and voluntary
reputation organizations. And Moppin seemed very surprised
about this, to which you had mentioned that you actually
stitched, you know, someone in your house.
And. Turns out you don't need decades
of licensing, and it's schooling for for things like that.
Does this really get to the heart of it?
That there's some people who say I get to take the risk I own
myself, and there's others who say you have to delegate to the
authorities. I feel like there's a big lesson
there we can extract as far as where our different starting
points are on approaching these issues.
I think so. And sometimes it's sort of a
complicated, burdensome conversation.
But talking about regulatory frameworks and barriers to entry
into, you know, licensed professions is is a huge like
problem from the American Medical healthcare.
You know, like for example, if you go to Thailand, you can pay
out of pocket. This is Thailand, It's not the
United States. Pay out of pocket a couple $1000
and you have a really nice hospital stay for a few days and
you get treated for a moderate to serious medical condition.
You can't have that in the United States.
It'll cost you 36,050 thousand, maybe more.
And it's because they don't have the same regulatory and and
capture and and licensure and all of those problems you you
get treated nicely, you know that cause generally when we go
and we seek help for a serious problem, we're fairly discerning
'cause we're like, oh, my life is at risk and you don't just
pick up some, you know, random hobo on the street, you're like,
OK, what's can I see your resume?
Who else did you treat? You know, we do referrals and
when we talk about making things affordable, you know, all of a
sudden the conversation with the left becomes a lot less hostile.
You know, it's like, I want you to have a better quality of
life. I want you to have healthcare
and I want you to thrive. And then we, we should always be
having conversations from these kind of like worldview levels,
not necessarily policy levels. Like, always start there.
And like, what do we agree on? We agree on human flourishing
and like prosperity, and then get a little bit more granular
as the conversation progresses. It is amazing because the status
wedge that is continually getting in between people, it's
like, all right, I want to have this conversation on healthcare
about how I want it to to to be more affordable, more
accessible. But two minutes ago you were
telling me that I should lose my job if I don't get the shot.
And you were telling me my house should be confiscated from me if
I don't chip in through property taxes.
Maybe I'd like you to have healthcare, but I'm certainly
not going to fight for it. It seems like at every stage,
the more statism we have, the more divided the population is
than the otherwise would be. It's like we see so many
examples of churches and communities bringing people
together, but everything with the state almost necessarily
involves an enemy, necessarily involves dividing people of
goodwill. What is the libertarian unifying
message that's going to unite Americans as opposed to the
Democrats and Republicans who are constantly using arbitrary
divides? You know, that's a really good
question, something I need to work on and really refine for
2024. But essentially, you know, we
want, we want people to prosper in 2024 in the future, and we
want you to do that with as little pain as possible.
We want you to earn what you keep and we believe in the
American dream and we just want it to be accessible.
I think that's where we're really at right now.
Oh yes, excellent. Here is an article from the Hill
Five things the Libertarian Party Stands for.
Tell me if this is accurate. Inaccurate.
A little misleading. What's going on here?
So moving to the right side of the aisle, they say economic
conservatives, libertarians have faith in the free market and
believe that there's little the government can do to pressure
business or individuals that would be better than the power
of the invisible hand. Anything wrong with this
paragraph? I mean, I think that that's
pretty good for the Hill considering that they, you know,
they write some pretty nasty articles about us sometimes.
I mean, faith is probably not quite the way that I would put
it. Of course you got to have faith
in something, all right? Is it the voluntary sector or
the political sector? Yeah, it's not easy to have
faith in your average human beings.
People can let you down, but they act like there's two
there's two things you can have. You can either have faith or
certainty. What kind of certainty do these
politicians give us? Besides, we know that they'll
lie, and we know that they'll start wars based on lies.
Faith stood out to me as totally misleading, OK?
So a little condescending is is how I would say that it's a
little condescending. Next paragraph.
This means unrestricted competition among financial
institutions, as well as the elimination of the Internal
Revenue Service, Social Security and income taxes.
Anything wrong with this? Well, I mean unrestricted is
kind of a scare word, right. Unrestricted competition, I mean
competition is extremely restricted right now, but I mean
it's disproportionate because it's we don't get to compete
with the government in a lot of ways.
You know, unrestricted is not a is not a bad thing.
I mean, what about market free market constraints?
You know, the market constraints itself in a lot of ways, yeah.
I never saw the free market, as you know, totally unrestricted,
that there's a huge restriction, which is I can't get a second of
your time or a penny out of your pocket unless I create some
value that you choose to engage with consensually.
So it's creating these constant hurdles of I need to keep
pleasing the customers or they'll go elsewhere.
I need to keep pleasing the employees or they'll go
elsewhere. The idea that it's unrestricted
and really they're the ones who are.
Look at how competitive democracy is, seeing Chris
Christie and Nikki Haley and Ramaswamy go at each other.
Is that not competitive? Is, you know, taking a candidate
off the ballot in Colorado? Is that not, you know, being
ultra competitive? Yeah, it's that's pretty nuts.
I mean the, yeah, government has a monopoly I suppose.
Could you imagine though if socks were like, if the sock
industry was run like the government, we're going to
regulate socks like like the DMV.
You get small, medium and large, light brown and dark brown.
You can, you want any other color you got to get a permit.
Like it would be out of control. It's like free market scare
tactics. Next paragraph.
The main argument is that social pressure and the free market
will convince individuals and companies to donate to charity
to help the less fortunate, replacing the need for
government run social safety net or make business decisions to
protect the environment in the hopes of being rewarded by those
market forces. And in the free market,
companies live and die without the help of government.
So no bailouts? Anything wrong or misleading in
these two? OK.
Well, I like that they mentioned no bailouts, but I mean private
charity. Well, sure, but what about the
family structure? What about things like, you
know, free market insurance and insurance costing a lot less and
groups that pull together. What is it?
You know, I can't think of the term all of a sudden.
They're illegal now. Immigrant groups used to have
them, yeah. All of those things existed
independent of aggressive taxation and, you know, prior to
it and and heavy regulation, a lot more people used to also
have their own workers comp insurance in case workers.
Yeah, in case you were injured on the job, you would pay 7 or
$8 a month and you had your own, your own policy.
It's just such, a, well, you know, it is the Hill.
It's it's not super flattering. Final thing on economic
conservatism or advocating for free market policies.
Here is a chart by the American Enterprise Institute titled by
Mark Perry, Chart of the Day or Century and it measures price
changes from January of 2000 to December of 2020.
Now walk us through what we find on this graph and some lessons
we can extract. OK, hospital services, college
tuition, Medicare services, those are all very heavily
regulated, and government money is pumped into every single one
of them, whether it was COVID treatments, federal grants,
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare.
Food and Drug Administration. The industry, it just goes on
and on and on. Average hourly wage housing,
food and beverages. So those are the Reds.
The all the things we see the state regulating and subsidizing
are getting are drastically increasing in price.
As far as do you have a general theory as to why some things
decrease in price? Because it seems like the
progressives who who would say, well, TV's are privatized, so
you know, the private companies are just going to charge, they
should just, yeah, it should be $3,000,000 of TV.
The latest TV should be $11 billion and the price should
just keep going up, right. The way that it works, right is
that you're, you decide, I'm going to, you know, charge
$10.00 for my widget and the government comes along and they
says, well, there's good news, we have $9 worth of widget
subsidies were passing out and I say I think I'm going to charge
$19.00 for my widgets because I knew that people could afford 10
on their own and now they've got an extra 9.
And so I'm just going to absorb that.
That's that's how that works. That is literally how that
works. When it comes to things we can
learn from the success of Javier Malay, recently elected
president of Argentina, his messaging seemed very
Rothbardian. As far as going populist, being
very pro liberty, being very unapologetic, what are some
things that come to mind as far as what we can learn in America
from his example in Argentina? He told the truth.
He did not pull any punches. He told the truth.
He did not care about decorum. He was coarse.
He was crass. He was blunt and to the point.
He also wrapped libertarianism in a populist wave.
Because you need to appeal to people, and if you get up there
and just literally quote Man, Economy and State 1100 pages of
technical libertarian jargon, they're not going to get it.
But what they do understand is that government ruined my life.
Everything costs more. I can't afford anything.
Everything sucks. Whose fault is it?
It's government's fault. Why AB and C?
Inflation. Who did it?
The government. Get rid of these agencies.
Keep your own money. This is really simple, very
direct, aggressive message. And it's fascinating to watch
this work because there's such such a debate in the United
States and the Libertarian Party especially, and somewhat in the
broader movement about what sort of messaging really turns people
on and what will win an election.
And there you go, that one. You know, seeing the footage of
the cops basically killing Eric Garner on camera, I I don't know
all the details, but I remember that was just so inexcusable and
so traumatizing for some reason. That pisses me off a heck of a
lot more than all the mass murder campaigns that they've
gone on since. I don't know, the US Philippine
War, the US Civil War, whatever. There is something about
storytelling and focusing on the suffering of one individual,
seeing it in person, actually seeing him crying out, you know,
of all this stuff. So when it comes to actual
stories, we can tell to really invoke and, you know, arouse the
emotions of the masses, What are some things that come to mind as
far as stories or so? Not narratives, but individual.
Stories. We can tell stories, yeah.
Oh man, I don't want to get dark, but you know, the one that
really, like, tore me up most recently was Justin Amash
talking about his little, his seeing his little cousin, Baby
George, pulled out of the rubble in Palestine.
It's, I mean, like now that I have a baby I my threshold, my,
my ability to tolerate seeing that sort of carnage is is
greatly diminished. I had to, like, I had to like,
shamefully admit, like I couldn't look at it very long,
had to scroll away. But I mean, that's what American
foreign policy does like. It kills young Orthodox
Christian babies in churches overseas.
People have to dig through the rubble and pull up.
And he just was like a little sleeping Angel covered in grey
ash, you know? But his little spirit had left
his body. Like, that's what our foreign
policy does. And if you're not excited about
changing it, you know that's what your tax dollars do.
And I know that we don't support it, right?
Like, no one says I wake up in the morning and I want children
and babies to die. But we should get fired up over
wanting, wanting to make a change and and one of the
simplest changes we can do is to stop voting for people who say
yes, I want to commit murder overseas.
And the incredible revelations by Scott Horton and Connor
Freeman at the Libertarian Institute, where this had been
well known before, but they really put it front and center.
Dave Smith brought it up on. The Joe Rogan experience is that
even if you say, well, actually none of this is America or
Israel's fault, it's all the fault of Hamas.
It turns out, according to places like the Times of Israel,
there was an explicit plan for the Likud Party to promote Hamas
by allowing money to come in from Qatar.
So they could say, look, this radical organization runs Gaza,
we can't make peace with them. So you can't expect us to, you
know, justify something like a Palestinian state, 'cause
they're basically competing against the Palestinian
Liberation Organization or Fatah.
So it turns out, even in this example, that Hamas is almost
not necessarily a creation of Likud or the IDF, but certainly
got tons of money and tons of power as a causal result of the
Israeli regime. On steroids, our tax dollars go
to enable the Israeli army to do this sort of thing.
It would be unheard of if we waged this kind of warfare on
Mexican civilians in response to something cartels did in the
United States. It would be insane and it's just
an insane thing for us to give someone else money to go and do
that. And they're not killing evil,
scary, machine gun toting infidels.
They're killing people who are hiding in terror in a church
with their young children. Even Charlie Kirk spoke out
against it like and that encourages me, you know, and and
I love that about social media is that people here in the
United States can see what's going on and they can question
it and they can say too far, too far Israeli government.
Yes, and credit to Candace Owens as well, who had Norman
Finkelstein on her show and let him give like a 60 minute
monologue. It is great to see these people
coming around, not throwing out everything they already believe
in, but embracing the pro-life message of all messages and
saying, you know, we could also take this it's wrong to murder
people and extend it to an area called the West Bank, East
Jerusalem and Gaza. So yes, I actually didn't know
that about Charlie Kirk, but I want to see exactly what he
said. Yeah, look it up on Twitter.
You can see his exchange with the Israeli government.
It's so wild, the times that we live in.
Well, hey, thank you Elon Musk, for taking Twitter.
Maybe it would have happened with Adam.
But either way, I've always said there are sort of two ways to
look at the world. There's bin Ladenism and then
there's libertarianism. If you look at bin Laden
writings when he's asked about. So this is in a book titled
Jihad Declarations, Interviews and Speeches by Osama bin Laden,
edited by Brad K Brenner. And in it he's, you know,
talking about people ask us about, you know, the civilians
we're killing, whether it's Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula
or Al Qaeda operating in Manhattan.
And he goes, you are, you know, the Democrats of the world.
You guys have democracy. Your leaders are self are not
self appointed, but they're elected by the people.
So the people are in charge. So us responding to the
politicians is no different than responding to the civilians.
So the bin Laden worldview holds everyone in a collectivist way
responsible for the crimes of the politicians, whereas the
libertarians say not only do they not represent us, the
politicians are the parasites within society.
What do you think about this as a genuine divide that we could
get behind? You're either a libertarian who
advocates peace and non aggression towards non
aggressors or you're a bin Laden I who holds people responsible
for the actions of their politicians.
I think it's a really great point to make.
And you know, a lot of Bin Ladens initial points that he
made in his, you know, letter declaring jihad on on the United
States were also some of them were printed in the beginning of
Scott Horton's book. Enough already.
I highly recommend people go read them.
He's going to do several things for you.
You're going to be like, wow, this man was really direct and
clear about why he was pissed off.
He really talked about what we were doing over there in the in
the Middle East and the United States government.
Uh huh. Uh huh.
I agree. I agree.
And then you're gonna get to a point.
You're gonna be like, oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
I don't think that you should murder everybody over here
because you're mad with what my military did.
It's a really eye opening thing. And that, you know, like I hope
that it would make people become very critical of their own
foreign policy because you don't wanna, you don't want people
doing that to you. And you know, I don't want
people doing that to me. I I don't want to be blown up
because bin Laden or someone else is mad because of blood
sucking Dick Cheney. You know and and his stuff that
I don't agree with. Oh, and none of these
Republicans want to be held accountable for what Joe Biden
democratically elected Joe Biden does.
No Democrats like, well, if Trump did it, you know, I
basically signed off by being a member of this, you know,
political entity called America. No one actually thinks this.
It's just nonsense that they have repeated.
I want to talk about three more people who I consider cultural
leaders. We talked about Javier Malay.
What is something you learned from Jimmy Dore as to you know
why he is so likeable? Was with The Young Turks now on
his own and I thought he did. He gives excellent speeches and
he's he's not just a little anti war.
He's so passionately on our side hates this mass murder regime.
What is a lesson we can learn from Jimmy Dore as far as, you
know, educating and riling up people to really understand the
importance of this message? Comedy.
There's something that that Jimmy Dore and Dave Smith have
that is, I think very special. And they're very skilled
communicators and they're used to communicating with audiences
and they're used to making people laugh.
And they tried over and over and over again, which means that
they also had to bomb early on, over and over and over again.
And so, you know, what I extrapolate from all of that is
determination, trying commitment, doing it over and
over and over again, becoming good at communicating with human
beings in a different way, in a different format, relating to
them. And then taking all of that
energy and everything you've learned and putting it into
foreign policy so that you can really communicate with people.
You know, how to tug on their heartstrings, you know, how to
make them laugh and you know how to do call back humor.
Right. Oh, well, I'm telling you a
bunch of facts. And then, you know, the story
kind of goes on and then you jump right back to, oh, this
poignant part right here. You know what?
What bin Laden said, what you saw here, what XY and Z.
You know, This is why it's all happening.
I I I love that about them. Sure.
And a final person know we can hopefully try to emulate and
extract lessons from Ron Paul. What comes to mind as far as
lessons we could learn from who did someone to this day, who,
even though he was a Republican of course, was on our side on
almost every issue. Lessons from Ron Paul we can
extract and implement today to spread the message of freedom.
You know, Ron Paul was polite, but he was courageous and he
always told the truth. He told the truth and he didn't
pull his punches. He didn't have to get worked up.
He didn't have to be angry, he didn't have to swear at
everybody, but he never sugar coated it.
You know, Ron Paul's Giuliani moment was is just like a
really, I think it was really life changing moment for me.
And I think it was a life changing moment for for
thousands of other libertarians. And I hope that if I'm ever in a
situation like that, you know that I can rise to the occasion
and do that good of a job. Remind us of the details.
What is the date of this event and where's the website that
people can check out? Defeatthedeepstate.org We are
holding another Rage Against the War Machine rally.
Rage Against the War Machine 2. Defeat the Deep State.
Let's talk about the relationship between war and the
military industrial complex. It's on February 17th.
We need to fundraise to get all of our speakers there, to pay
for our infrastructure, to our stage, our sound system, all of
that really important stuff. So please donate, especially if
you attended last year. We would love to see a matching
gift to put on the same rally in the same way this year, February
17th, it's a Saturday afternoon. Be there, it's gonna be awesome.
Keith is speaking. Scott Horton is speaking.
We've got Garland Nixon from the left, Craig Pastajard, Doula,
Patrick Henningson just signed on, and a ton more awesome
speakers. I'm so excited about it.
Thanks to everyone for watching Keith and I don't tread on
anyone in the Libertarian Institute.
Angela McArdle, thank you for your time.