Welcome to Keith Knight, Don't Tread on Anyone and the
Libertarian Institute. Today I am John, joined by Cool
Apple 29. Sorry, I was trying to read that
as I was doing the introduction. John, where can people find you
if they want to see where you stand on things and where you
promote your ideas? Just on Twitter.
I basically anonymous Twitter account so nothing crazy.
The other day, a lot of people made quite a bit out of Vivek
Ramaswami's tweet. There were a number of things
that are in here. Let's go through this briefly,
and after each paragraph I'll stop and you can let me know if
you agree or disagree. Let's go right here.
The reason top tech companies often hire foreign born and 1st
generation engineers over Native Americans isn't because of an
innate American IQ deficit. A lazy and wrong explanation.
A key part of it comes down to the C word culture.
Tough questions demand tough answers, and if we're really
serious about fixing the problem, we have to confront the
truth. What do you think about this
opening statement? I mean yes and no.
I mean wages definitely is going to play a factor.
They are looking for cheap labor.
I have worked in tech actually I worked not directly.
I was in a like a middle management for a big tech
company for around 2 1/2 years. 3 even lived in the Bay Area for
like a year and a half, two years.
So he's partially right in a way they aren't.
Sometimes it does require longer hours and that is something that
I did notice that some workers from India were they had no
problem doing. But it is a wage factor as well.
You know, they are going to work for less.
Obviously they're going to want it.
Yeah. I mean, yeah, yeah, yeah it.
Says our American culture has venerated mediocrity over
excellence for way too long, at least since the 90s and likely
longer. That doesn't start in college,
it starts young. Do you think American culture
has venerated mediocrity over excellence?
No, I mean, it pushes hard work. I mean, it's definitely a grind,
but yeah, I would disagree with that.
I would I would say it's more of a victim culture.
I don't think that plays into working hard.
Would be OK, because I do feel like, I don't know where I would
get statistics on this, but it seems like I I was in college
about eight years ago and it seems like there were very, very
low standards for what people were expected to actually
achieve. Big accomplishments would be
things like changing your pronouns or declaring that
you're going to have like a very narrowly focused major.
It didn't seem like people were really striving for excellence.
It was much more about people are always entitled to respect
and excellence is kind of promoting bourgeois inequality
culture. So I saw a lot of it when I was
younger where people didn't really care about merit.
Everyone basically deserved the same thing and excellence was
kind of you insulting everyone else in your group did.
Did you see that at all when you were I'm I'm 28 now and this was
probably ages 16 to 25. OK, I actually went to college
later because I was in the service.
No, I mean, I would I would definitely say that.
I would say they made the standards basically anyone I
would say the bottom could meet it.
I mean, I knew a girl, she in one of the math classes, she got
a book with essentially the answers because she said she had
a learning disability. But it was nothing that would
show that she, you know, it was different or anything.
But there's people getting bachelors that, you know, were
given extra time on tests. So that always kind of blew my
mind. And it was a decent state school
I went to so. I did notice at Arizona State
University there were maybe 15% of the students were East Asian
and the library at any given moment was maybe 95% Asian.
I think it definitely has to do with the culture that people
embrace that it totally explain why Asians have higher incomes
than whites and why whites have higher incomes than blacks.
Do you think the main thing we're seeing is a cultural
divide that can sometimes be seen through the lens of race,
or is something like nation what we should focus on as opposed to
culture? I mean, it could be a mix of
both. I mean, obviously do you look at
statistics, Obviously different nations outperform the others
and we do get a good amount of the top performers from each
country. I believed it was like Nigerians
were one of the most educated groups coming to the US.
But I do think Asians, you know, that we heard the term tiger
moms. I could definitely see that.
I know many Indian families. I know I don't have statistics,
but it seems like the goal is, I mean, colleges need to question.
They're expected to go. So that's something I can
believe. As well as Jewish families too.
Oh, definitely, yeah. Yeah, and there was one more.
OK, I wanted to say that I get that there's a selection
process. People don't randomly come from
Japan, South Korea and China to America, only the most ambitious
ones. Those people tend to be more
ambitious. The point is that this
completely refutes the progressive narrative that all
differences in incomes between the races are as a result of
white supremacy. The fact that whites, I think,
are like 12th on median income after Japanese Americans,
Taiwanese Americans, Indian Americans, That is such a
poisonous, divisive thing that colleges have been pushing.
Whereas it's so empowering to realize that this is fake
because you realize you can actually do things to change the
way your life is. You have a lot of control.
You can show up to work on time. The main reason people got fired
at my last few jobs was attended something that's almost totally
within your control. You can ask for on the job
training. You can look at people you
admire and see what skills they have and try to emulate them.
You can get a mentor. There's a reason only a small
percentage of people get paid the minimum wage, because
employers are competing for their skills.
So I just hate this. The system's against you, so
don't bother working hard, don't bother showing up on time.
The system's still going to screw you over.
Anything else on this cultural aspect of Ramaswamy's tweet
before we move on? No, I mean, I didn't.
I do see where he's coming from. I do think he's kind of doing a
sleight of hand with. He's leaving out a part about
wages. I do agree with him culturally,
you know, they are looking for people that match what he was
saying so. I agree.
All right, You have a picture of Pat Buchanan in your Twitter
bio. And this made me say, well, this
gentleman and I have to have a lot of overlap on something.
This started after a John and I got into a respectable
disagreement on Twitter. I wanted to have him on so we
can lead by example and show that productive conversations
can happen even when tensions get a little high on X.
Keep calling it Twitter. What are the great lessons you
have learned from Pat Buchanan? This was Richard Nixon's speech
writer and later presidential candidate.
One of the great lessons my it was where the right went wrong
basically talked about the rise of the neocons from the party.
You know, I grew up during the West era where, you know, I
always kind of thought I knew history.
I knew a little bit about Reagan and all that.
I was younger, but it was always thought that Republicans were
the Hawks, you know, that, you know, they were always kind of
neo connish, just him breaking down the history of the party
and kind of like how it went, you know, Nixon, Vietnam,
basically. It kind of did open my eyes and
it was a different way of thinking.
You know, we got to see the failure of Iraq and Afghanistan.
You know, the I think the you know, the Ukraine war,
obviously, you know, Russia is at fault for it overall.
But I mean, they were, you know, HW Bush talked about, you know,
pushing the borders or the dangers of it.
And if he said that today, I mean, he would be called the
Russian asset. And so probably his neo probably
is just foreign policy. I also agreed with that.
He'll probably disagree as a libertarian, but he didn't
mention corporations. They kind of their loyalty to
the US compared to past, you know, isn't really, you know, on
the same level. So to the US so but those this
foreign policy really was special to me so.
I was really surprised to see a Republican presidential
candidate said the US should not have entered the Second World
War or the First World War. He makes a very good case in a
Republic, not an empire, and he was opposed to the first Iraq
War in 1991. Him and Joe Sobrin, along with
my colleague at the Libertarian Institute, Sheldon Richmond, got
to together and I forget what they had called it.
It was like Committee to Avoid a Holocaust or something.
It was something very provocative like that where they
said, look, we just won. There was this terrible Cold
War. We were on pins and needles for
decades worrying there'd be a nuclear exchange.
We won. The last thing we need to do is
go finding enemies like Saddam Hussein, let alone provoking
NATO. In Buchanan's 1999 book A
Republic, Not an Empire, one of the first sections is titled
Quartering Conflict with Russia and he warns against, he warns
against NATO expansion, especially to Georgia and
Ukraine, the two countries Bush junior said would come into NATO
as he was leaving office in 2008.
Buchanan was just so brilliant on on being able to see where
where this stuff led to. I also really appreciated how he
mentioned empires that spread themselves too thin end up going
away, end up vanishing. So if you're pro America, it
doesn't necessarily follow that you want to provoke conflicts
because this could weaken your nation as the examples he uses
as Czarist Russia over expanded in the First World War and
couldn't defend their own capital in Moscow and the
Bolsheviks were able to take over.
The Ottoman Empire over expanded in its First World War, in the
First World War and they came crumbling down.
Kaiser Wilhelm's empire over expanded with a war on two
fronts. The Japanese Empire he uses, not
to mention the Soviet empire over expanded.
So they're just so many great lessons from Pat Buchanan.
Anything else on him before we get into the new Cold War?
No, not really. I mean, you touched all bases,
but it I mean, it is interesting to see his legacy once he
passed. I mean, I know in the 90s he was
kind of forced out by the National Review.
But I am curious how this new generation, especially Trump
winning, is going to treat him so.
And did you support, did you support President Trump in the
last election? Yes, I voted for Trump.
Yeah. And what were your main reasons
for doing so? Just his policies.
I know he kind of backtracked abortion, but just overall, you
know, he talks about protectionism and terrorists.
He's still capitalist heresy. You know, she did try to track
this center. She's, you know, anytime you
have a Democrat and you are going to backslide into statism.
So those would be my reasons. Yeah, My whole thing was, yeah,
his willingness to negotiate with both Xi Jinping and
Vladimir Putin. I thought that was so important
when all he said was basically the dying needs to stop in the
Russia Ukraine conflict, which is not some brilliant
contribution intellectually, but it was a hell of a lot more than
we were getting from Liz Cheney and Kamala Harris.
No, definitely. There's no wars.
That's always been a major selling point.
Sending troops to like eastern Ukraine would be insane.
So which is something that there's been.
Oh yeah? When were you in the military?
I had a break in service. I was in 2010 through 2014.
So the things that come to mind in that era, well, 2014 there
was the Maidan Revolution. Was there any discussions in the
military about what was happening in Ukraine in 2014
like amongst you guys? No, no, that wasn't really.
It was just another, I mean, you don't really pay too much
attention that international news, but I was just like
another third world country heading conflict.
So not conflict, change of government.
So in 2011, there was the NATO operation in Libya.
Do you have any information on that?
No, I mean, there's no like troops on the ground or
anything. You know, one of the I think
submarines launched Tomahawks, but I'm not too familiar with
what took place. I think it was mostly an air
war. But yeah, there is no like boots
on the ground as far as I know. Maybe evacuating people.
But yeah, I mean, it was just maybe it was the bad guy.
I didn't really know too much. I knew about Libya.
I knew about Gaddafi. Still kind of neo, neo connish,
but yeah, we didn't I, I think they just didn't know what to do
after it fell. They kind of just thought it
would sort of stuff out. Yeah, Obama even makes that
clear in his book of Promised Land.
He said we took out Gaddafi's regime at a lower cost than we
were spending in Iraq and Afghanistan on a daily basis.
Unfortunately, due to a lack of historic democratic institutions
in Libya, it created somewhat of a power vacuum.
So that was just shocking to read.
And then the other thing in that time frame, Obama came out and
said Bashar al-Assad is using chemical weapons and Assad needs
to go was his headline. My understanding is that with
Operation Timber Sycamore, they ended up siding with Al Qaeda in
Syria to overthrow Assad. Is this accurate?
I don't. I had friends in Syria.
I never went myself. I don't know.
I know some of that, aren't I, I don't know.
I'm pretty low rank. I don't know what they would if,
if they sided with Al Qaeda. I maybe some arms I think got
up. I think there was an art, but
wasn't it, that they gave the Obama administration, they
basically funded a couple of I think it was like an al Qaeda
branch of it and that preceded ISIS I believe came along later.
But I think they did get US arms.
I thought. I think the term they used was
like a moderate Al Qaeda. I can't remember the exact term,
but I think it was like Susan Rice or somebody made like it
was like moderate Islamic rebels or something.
It was something kind of wild. But I do recall that.
But like big decisions now I have no idea.
What do you think people need to know about the new Cold War with
Russia? My personal view is I think it's
good that Trump is going to talk and work with Russia itself,
talk to Putin and anytime you have communication, you're less
than the risk of war. I mean, I don't think Biden and
them are even discussing anything.
I do think if you turn the temperature down, I do think the
war in Ukraine will end soon just because Trump's also coming
into office and the amount of men power.
I mean, I'm sure Russia wants to retool in Ukraine.
So they're not, they're not going to have a country.
They just keep fighting at the rate they are.
The manpower's got to be crushed.
But no, I don't see much change happening.
I'll probably just still be training with NATO countries.
I think Trump will pressure NATO into increasing his spending.
I do think the new Cold War would be extremely bad though,
too, Especially, you know, Russia feels threatened.
We don't know what comes next after Putin.
You know, he's pretty not. He is a rational actor and just
to act, you know, trying to overthrow up the second world's
nuclear power hoping for an overthrow is or an unstable
country. He's not, you know, smart in my
opinion. I know that's kind of.
Rambling. It is beyond psychotic that they
would even think about something like regime change in Russia or
the constant vilification of Putin, or the fact that Jake
Sullivan or Anthony Blanken haven't even reached out to
either Lavrov or Putin. It is just unbelievable.
I never would have guessed that they would go what, 2 years?
I think December of 21 is the last time Biden and Putin spoke.
Biden's wearing that stupid mask when he's on webcam talking to
Putin. He's just so pathetic.
All right, let's talk about tariffs.
Do you think tariffs are something that should be
embraced by Americans for the purpose of preserving domestic
jobs? I grew up in kind of Rust Belt,
so I'm I am sympathetic to them. Republicans do have a history of
using them. If you look at Reagan, I mean,
it depends on what, how you use them.
I think you'd be strategic with it.
I mean, I don't think it's good to, you know, have a country
that maybe doesn't like us, like China have, you know, such a
large control of our trade. But I mean, you can, I mean, at
least in my opinion, I mean, you have to be strategic about it.
The American consumers aren't going to tolerate, you know, too
much, you know, price hikes, as we just saw at this election,
so. Would you say China doesn't like
us? Out of the 1.2 billion Chinese,
how many do you think really don't like us?
I know they're more patriotic. The younger generation is more
patriotic. I have some studies on that.
I don't think they hate us. I think they see us as a rival.
I do think they do want to undercut US militarily.
I do think that I don't think that they and they want to
surpass us. I don't think that they, you
know, want to, you know, destroy the.
No, I'm sorry You had cut out there.
It'll all, it'll all mesh together when it comes to the US
China relations. I just don't see why it is so
bad if the US is giving them dollars that every year are
losing their value because the Federal Reserve keeps increasing
the money supply. The government keeps spending
more money. We're sending them dollars.
They're sending us actual products and services.
It seems like the US is winning on this side of the deal.
Millions of people in lower and middle class have that have, you
know, middle incomes. They have access to products
that our parents never could have imagined having.
This increases our standard of living.
And we're sending them Federal Reserve notes, which we are
constantly admitting that, oh, those are going to, those are
going to be eventually worthless.
It seems like, one, we shouldn't vilify billions of people and
provoke another war, even if it means potential regime change in
Taiwan or anything. But more importantly, it seems
like we're at the benefiting end of this.
Is there something I'm missing? No I do see your point and I
think Ron Paul made a made a point just like that to be
honest. No I agree I will take I don't
think we should vilify China. I do get 6 being some of the
comments that talk about Russians and their culture you
see on X as well. I think the point I would make
is that you talk about a higher standard of living and I agree
our GDP has gone up, but I mean, look at would you say people are
happier? I know that's kind of a cop out,
but do you think maybe Americans having extra TV, is it worth
like the not job security, you know, the lower fertility rates?
I feel like that does play a role into it when you lose
manufacturing jobs. I mean, would having an extra TV
or fridge in your house lead to it for granted?
It's been our standard of living is much higher than the 70s.
But I mean mental health rates, fertility rates, you know,
people aren't buying starter homes.
I know that isn't all tied into trade, but I do feel like
there's some correlation. Maybe we have sold out and I
think you can as talked about that as well in trade wars.
But I would love to hear your response.
I know I can't prove the rise of GDP has that would be dumb to
say. I know I can't prove that trade
wars that hollowed out manufacture are not trade wars,
but the free trade kind of hollowed out the industrial base
led to this stuff. But maybe there's some
correlation if you understand what I'm saying.
Sure, there's definitely jobs that are changing and I think
18180% of people were employed in America in the agricultural
industry. Now it's only 2%.
So jobs can definitely change. I think people are less happy in
general today. I think that's as a causal
result of losing religion and not finding something fulfilling
to replace it with. I don't think it's because they
have more access to products and services.
I think the previous generation saw happiness as the result of
frequent positive social interactions with other people.
Today people see happiness as acquiring more material goods,
and that is totally terrible. That is something I'm on board
with. I just don't think tariffs would
be a solution to that. But when it comes to job
security, I think the best way to not be insecure is to have a
lot of options. Because if when I originally had
a job I was terrified I was walking on egg shells terrified
to quit. Once I gained a lot of on the
job skills and the area I live in, Chandler Gilbert in Mesa, AZ
started to expand and have more businesses, I had no problem
being a little more stern with my boss.
I was happy to ask for a raise, knowing if he didn't give it to
me, I could apply somewhere else.
So I think job security would come from having more job
opportunities for the average person, and that could result
from massive deregulation. As we've seen since the 60s and
70's, the code of the Federal Register pages, the number of
regulations has absolutely skyrocketed.
Even though there was a small drop under Reagan and small
under Trump, it's not even close.
The net gain in regulations. This increases compliance costs
for all businesses. But Amazon and Walmart are not
terrified of going out of business if the minimum wage is
increased or if there's another regulation, it's small
businesses which get canned out. So this means employees have
fewer options than they otherwise would in a less
regulated environment, and they're more insecure on the
job. And because there's fewer
opportunities, employers don't have to work so hard to attract
good talent by offering more money to employees.
So I definitely see the loss of jobs as something terrible.
I don't think it's because there's too many voluntary
exchanges. I think it's because there's too
much third party coercion by people in Washington, DC and
state governments as well. Anytime I see, like if you take
the big examples, a blockade on Yemen, a blockade on Gaza,
Churchill's blockade of Germany in the First World War.
These places ended up having mass starvation because they
couldn't trade as much. So when you don't trade food,
starvation is clear, but when you don't trade technology, it
seems like it's less clear. But you're also impoverishing
your domestic population. That is my final justification
for opposing tariffs and domestic imperialism of a
regulatory state. Anything else on tariffs before
we move on? No, I mean, I agree with you,
especially on the regulation. I'll I'll agree with you there
just because I agree with the choices.
So this home, my home state, once the jobs from way it's kind
of a bluish state. Everybody was leaving for the
Reds, not red states, but the states with like easier to start
businesses. Ohio is a big one.
People are moving to just because you know, it's easier to
start businesses. They have more options.
So I definitely see that family members actually.
So I do agree with regulation cutting it.
So I definitely see your point there.
Who is your favorite president ever and why?
I used so favorite president ever, I kind of consider who's
the best. It's going to seem a pop out.
You know, I would say Washington just because he set the tone and
culture. So if you look at other
countries that became free during the revolution around
this time period, it could have, America could have easily
backslided. Shay's rebellion, all that from
Washington. It's kind of set the tone, which
allowed basically smooth transfer of power.
He was small. I mean, he kind of just made it
all happen aspect. I mean, he was the ultimate
underdog. So that's, it's a corny answer,
but I would say Washington modern, I would probably say
Reagan just because he basically got away from LBJ's massive
government or at least tried to. So yes.
That is another point for Reagan which I should have considered.
I would say my favorite president after having read RN
the Nixon memoirs. It's 1000 pages of his entire
life. Reading that, I would I'm
tempted between either Nixon or Eisenhower.
I might say Eisenhower when he invited Nikita Khrushchev to
tour America. This was the Butcher of
Budapest. In 1956 he was given that title
and in 1959 he was willing to shake hands without conceding
really anything. He basically drew red lines
saying until we have exactly he was able to draw red lines that
were much more reasonable. He said you can't have any bases
in Guatemala. We will go to war over this but
until we give West Germany a war guarantee we're not going to do
it unless 10 other countries get on board.
I saw him as much more caring about peace.
This is why, as some. Are you pro-life?
I am, yes. Yes, me.
Too. So I definitely believe that the
fetus is differentiated from property.
In the property person's dialectic.
The fetus is a human life. I also think we should extend
that pro-life position to people in our own country and other
countries as well. So I see Eisenhower and his anti
war stance as practicing real world pro-life diplomacy.
So that is my reasoning for liking Eisenhower the most,
especially there's a chapter in his second book, I think it's
titled Waging Peace is the book where it talks about his
reasoning for his discussions with the Soviets.
And it really, really makes you appreciate this guy.
He did hate war. That is, I mean, that is true.
He was very different from my car there.
I do, I know, I keep bringing it up.
But Ron Paul, I think he's the same argument for being for life
as well and extending it to war. So that is I I will give the
libertarians that. I will give that.
Who was the? Worst president ever and why?
Worst president? Ever.
I mean, it is. A hard question I see worst
modern president would probably be LBJ, Medicaid or Medicaid,
the expansion of it, civil rights law.
It was good, but it happened. But how he weaponized it,
basically now it controls every part.
Not every part, but basically it hammers every business no matter
what. Disparate.
And then Vietnam too. I mean, he essentially did it.
I mean, it's more complex than the elites, but he basically did
it not to seem weak against Goldwater.
On communism, I wouldn't say that was the only reason, but I
mean that was a huge part. And then to extend the war.
Yeah, he. He probably would be the worst
modern president overall. I would have to think about it.
Maybe, yeah, I'd say LBJ, probably just because he's
impacted our country the most at this time.
I think. The case for LBJ is very good
that he might be the worst. I would just have to go with
Woodrow Wilson getting involved in the First World War on
America's with the American involvement.
People forget that this led to 116,000 American deaths led to
military conscription of men. I want to say ages 18 to 41 was
the original range that he used for conscription.
He had the Espionage Act putting people in jail for speaking out
against the war. He had the creation of the
Federal Reserve monopolizing the currency, which the biggest
thing is it outlaws potential competing currencies so it
doesn't keep the Fed on their toes.
Even if there's no other major currency, the fact that there
could be a potential one I think would stop them from constantly
inflating. He also solidified the income
tax. So I would have to say Woodrow
Wilson is my least favorite for those reasons when it comes.
To Yeah. No.
I was going to say. I know you said you're a Nixon
fan. I was always curious.
I've heard different things from, I know libertarians, the
gold standard. How did you feel about that or
what? What's your take on that?
Because I mean, Nixon was also the peace candidate as well.
So what's your take on his price control?
Because economics you kind of he was more of a.
I guess big government. Republican or the before Reagan
revolution Republican? So I was interested in your
thoughts on that it seems. Very clear that the price
controls led to shortages in the economy.
This is something Nixon even admits in the August 1971
chapter of his memoir. But to this day, he still
defends the gold standard. Now when he talks about why he
went off the gold standard, he said the British came to the
Americans, the ambassador, and said we want these 3 billion
Federal Reserve note dollars. We want to exchange this for
gold. Nixon's reasoning was if we gave
them the gold, it might entice everyone else to come get their
gold. Now, if we don't give them the
gold in response, people might say, well, the US has defaulted
and can't pay its debts. So Nixon said that he was stuck
in a very difficult situation and decided to close the gold
window. He uses the word temporary.
It's been 50 years, so I don't think it's temporary.
So the original justification for him doing it was not well.
It'll be great for economic growth and it's really good to
be able to print money without having a backed currency.
His original justification was it would make us look bad.
So now when all the Paul Krugman's of the world are
saying, oh, what a great thing it is that the Federal Reserve
can print money at will and has a monopoly on this, That was
never the original justification for why Nixon got us off of it.
I think it was a mistake in the long run.
He says getting off the gold standard was on net a good
thing. I think having a commodity based
currency is a great check and balance when it comes to
governments. It's good to have the Supreme
Court. It's good to have, you know, a
population that can resist something.
It's good to have the Second Amendment as a check and
balance. But the a concept that you can't
spend too much without affecting the price of a commodity.
It's one check and balance to stop the government from
constantly overspending. The more resources that the
government spends money on, the less resources there are
available for the voluntary sector, which I see as the great
civilized wealth creator within society.
So I would certainly oppose that.
And the more dollars that are easily printed when you don't
have a gold standard means people who save their money
basically lose the value drastically.
A lot of safe. So it creates a disincentive for
people to save. So if they're not going to save
up to buy a house, well, then they engage in low impulse
control behaviors and they're more likely to go to strip
clubs, more likely to buy drugs to deal with their lot in life.
I mean, so few people in my generation are actively saving
up for a house. So all of this is certainly
connected to a very weak currency.
So I would still like Nixon a lot, but that I think was
definitely the wrong move. I liked your point.
About low impulse control, I very rarely hear that argument
over you. Know why, people?
Have, I mean that doesn't, people don't really talk about
it. I think Victoria Ramashan did
actually talk about it so as well.
So it is nice to hear that argument from a libertarian
point of view. What is your?
Most important issue. Most important.
Issue, most important issue would be just preserving the
culture of the US. So when I say culture, the US
immigration plays a role. All these different things play
a role. But for me it is we are a free
enterprising country. I know I disagreed with you on
how much you know the government should tip the scales, but just
the entrepreneurship, the suspicion of small government as
well to. Me.
Those are the biggest. Things and you saw with when
Obama, Clinton as well, but Obama seemed to be the one that
really kind of stepped it up to that next level of being not
individualism, but more, you know, he'd always say the word
community and just basically individualism.
Even for every group that's come here, they've always, you know,
it was less about political power, more about wealth
generation. You don't look at the Italians,
the Jewish, you know, blacks, you know, a big thing was
Motown, these, you know, culture, they wanted to build
wealth. And then having the culture
shift to, you know, a more community based, more big
government, more, you know, in our life, it's more the mindset
to be that we lose kind of our independent streak.
We kind of rely more on, you know, the nanny state.
And so that's my, you know, biggest fear that we end up like
a, a Britain or we end up like a, you know, one of, you know,
the European countries that are just stagnant, at least to me,
or Spain even. So at least to me, all the other
issues kind of come from that abortion.
That is something that we do have to win that minds on.
But we have they have been making progress.
But that to me was the biggest win is the rejection of kind of
the nanny state. But we saw this in the last
election. Excellent points.
Now I can really see why LBJ, it makes sense is your least
favorite. Anything else?
The the greats is. My gosh, how annoying is that?
It's up there with the Patriot Act.
It's like, Oh yeah, how can you give them these names?
Anything else you want to discuss?
No, that's. Pretty much it if you're
interested in the Great Society book.
I forget who wrote it, but I it was like the history of it.
I think it's Anthony Shells. I can't remember her name.
She wrote the FDR book as well. They're forgotten amnity.
Schlaze I think is her name. Yeah, she.
Yeah, there's a great book on the Great Society.
You know, at one point one of the programs were basically
giving money to rioters that were organizing riots in the
inner city. So at one point the government
was handing them money and they would, you know, so it is, it is
a quite a wild ride. So.
But let's figured you'd enjoy that book.
Yeah. Great.
Society, A New History by Amidi Blaze, I think is how you say.
I did read a book she wrote titled The Forgotten Man.
Yeah, FDR. And that was on FDR.
I have not even heard of this book, so that is very
interesting. I will check that out now.
Your favorite Pat Buchanan book? I would have to say Churchill.
Hitler in the Unnecessary War I thought was such such an
excellent book. Do you have a favorite Buchanan
book? Death of the less I would say,
just because. I mean he makes.
I mean, all the problems he addressed, they were kind of, I
mean he called it like 25 years ahead of time.
So I'd say death of the less I've read.
Death to super, I've read. I've read the Churchill.
I don't agree with it. I do.
So I do see the points he makes. I don't agree with that, but he
is. I mean, he basically makes the
strongest arguments for that point of view.
So I will give him that. Death to the last with the right
and wrong, death to superpower. I think it was decent.
So let's agree, yeah. The title was Suicide of a
Superpower. Can America last to Can America
survive to 2025 is the actual title.
So we will see. We will see.
Thanks to everyone for watching the Libertarian Institute on X
John. Thank you for your time,
brother. I appreciate it.
Thank. You for that?