PBD Podcast - HEATED Debate Between Patrick Bet-David and An Anarchist | Ep. 248 | Part 1

Episode Date: March 17, 2023

In this episode, Patrick Bet-David and Michael Malice will discuss: The concept of anarchy  Michael Malice's ridiculous sleep schedule The US funding the Ukraine-Russia war   FaceTime or Ask Patrick any questions on https://minnect.com/ Want to get clear on your next 5 business moves? https://valuetainment.com/academy/ Join the channel to get exclusive access to perks: https://bit.ly/3Q9rSQL Download the podcasts on all your favorite platforms https://bit.ly/3sFAW4N Text: PODCAST to 310.340.1132 to get added to the distribution list --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/pbdpodcast/support

Did you ever think you would make it? I feel I'm so close I could take sweet victory. I know this life meant for me. Yeah, why would you bet on the lieth when we got bettated? Value payment, giving values, contagiousness, Word of entrepreneurs, we can't no value that haters. Howdy run homie, look what I've become. I'm the entrepreneur.

So we got a special guest here all the way from Buffalo, New York, who got nine and a half hours of sleep last night. He just wrote a book called Why You Don't Need More Than Four Hours of Sleep. Guys, be ready. Michael Malice is bringing in today. I think we should have probably recorded three minutes before us going to the podcast literally Tom was about to have his first fist fight And it was gonna be pretty intense him and Michael going at it, but it's gonna be friend I'd like to see who's it's good to have you on the bottom the anarchist side of the Russian don't use fist. We use knives

That's that's what the Canadian use time or the use apologies or they Back I'm sorry. I'm sorry Canadians and apologize just the Quebec while which are sort of like recycled French anyways This is what happens when you when you have a guy that comes on a podcast. It takes half a second. He describes himself as an anarchist. Is that correct? Michael Mellis. That inside describing, I think.

Yes. Without adjectives. Yes. He has a book that just came out a couple months ago, The White Peele, A Tale of Good and Evil. Michael Mellis, Demand, The myth, the legend, in the flesh today. How you been, man? How you doing? I'm doing great, relatively, yes. Yeah, relatively. So tell us your sleep pattern. You said you can't author, and I think the audience wants to know what is the...

So, I had several reasons to become an author, one of which are particularly because I like writing books, or I was pretty good at it, but I wanted, I had a list of things I want to visualize and accomplish in my life. Never have to talk to someone I don't want to. Work for myself, have a legacy, and also sleep in when I go my natural sleep pattern. So I go to bed at 2 a.m., I wake up at 11 and this, I've been doing this for years. So whenever I that's kind of messed up, I am just a low key. Michael, you literally go to sleep at 2 a.m. and you wake up at 11 every day. Monday through Sunday.

So when we said podcast 9 to 11, you thought it was late. No, no, no, no, no, I didn't think that at all. You said come do the show. And I said, sure, then you're like, oh, it's 11. So you did a bait and switch on me. Yeah, well, you never have a morning meeting in your life. Michael sends me a message. I used to do Glenn Beck show in the morning

and that was hell on earth. I'll say one thing. Back your schedule. Your morning was so complex. It is the exact opposite of what I was looking for in my life because I used to work in night life and Miami. Right. And I was sick of waking up at noon every single day.

I would go to bed at four or five in the morning, a little later than you. Right. And wake up at noon and I was like, I gotta get my life together. But this is my bio rhythm. Hey, listen. And what's the point of being successful

if you can't set your own terms? Michael, if those are your bio- You work in the middle. What audience wants to know is what are your pronouns? That's it. And that's also. Sir. Okay, sir. And if you can somehow convince Pat to get on your schedule, you were a great salesman.

Yeah, he should be on his schedule. It might not work for him. You should take it advantage of the whole pronoun thing. Just make your pronouns tired and shut up. I'm not tired. I'm just kind of, that's his pattern, Tom. Yeah, but the man's sleep. What's wrong with that? You know, you know, it's crazy. So, so yesterday, while we're talking about this yesterday I do my the executive physical that I do every couple years you go in at six thirty in the morning kind of time Time you wake up and they literally take you from doctor to doctor to doctor and they test everything right they take check your heart Your skin your breathing your you know

Everything they do it's phenomenal. You see nine or 10 doctors in a span of nine hours, okay? And the lady asked me a question. She said, so how much sleep do you get per night? And I felt compelled to sell her my sleep pattern as a list and I just want to let you know that, or a ring thing that people wear. So yeah, so I wore it for like six months. And it's not how much sleep you get,

is how much deep sleep you get. Because according to, or I get a lot of deep sleep. And she says, really, I said, yes, you still need to figure out a way to sleep seven hours a night. Because I'm doing four to six, whatever the time is for me. And I said, like, it works for some, it doesn't work for some, but it is what it is. I think that's what it is. Some people are, you know, the whole morning person, night person. I think there is some truth behind that certain people are night. If you're awake in the morning, you're not a person. There's something wrong with me. But early bird is not getting the worm here.

No, they get mishakun. But the thing is, I think extremely, extremely successful people often are the ones whose evolutionary advantage that they get by and for as a sleep. Like Clinton had for us a sleep. That's your famously had for us a sleep and they could just get by. You're getting nine hours. I'm getting on some of failure. No, I'm like moderately. I'm 12 to 15 here. It's sleep. Well, if there's anything you're not as a failure, people love listening to your opinions, people thinking, but maybe they're failures.

Yeah, but that's, that's, that's a perspective to have, right? You're failing. I'm winning. I'm Michael Malas, right? I'm the white pill guy. Anyways, okay. So for the audience that doesn't know you, Michael, take a, uh, uh, we did a podcast together. It was a zoom. It was the first time we had an interaction together. And I was trying to learn about you. A lot of people kept saying, Pat, you got to talk to this guy. You got to talk to this guy. We had a great conversation. I enjoyed it. Yeah. That's why I'm here. And I, yeah. any messages me says you said, I thought we had a good conversation. I'm like,

Michael, we had a very good conversation. We were trying to get on the podcast. So our booker, when you and you and we were trying to get a time to get on the podcast, they're like, hey, Michael, Matt right now, maybe later on. And then anyways, we eventually made a work. Wait, that's not what happened at all. He said, do you want to do the show? I said, yes, I don't hear from him. I check in and then he goes, they're not interested. It wasn't later. It was like, it's a no. But the guy's name is who? Who was that? Alan something. Alan. That's not our booker. Right. That's our booker. He also texted my sister somehow. Yeah. So started I by the way, but that was a separate way. Well, Alan wants

to date. She doesn't for you. She likes her sleep all Sunday. You know, you know, I was at a subtle. She was asleep. How was that subtle? There's things. Listen, you want subtle, I'll do it 11 p.m. Michael, give us your background. So how does one like you?

They don't. No one likes to become, you know, who you are today with your ideas. Tell us tell us what your ideas from. I don't what do you mean? What do you mean by that question? Exactly what I ask you like how did you come up with the ideas that you have today? Was it? Well I didn't come up with them per se. You know a lot of my ideas being an anarchist are historically you know I disown the call the anarchist hammock which we discussed. It was the collection of the tradition of anarchism and the tagline for the book is the black flag comes

in many colors because there are different schools of anarchism. But basically, anarchism is the understanding that political authority is illegitimate and you do not speak for me and everything else is just application. So when you're saying anarchist, we've interviewed libertarians,

Democrats, Republicans, progressives. For me, this is my first anarchist. Well Dave Smith's been on. He's a very failed anarchist. Yeah, he's more like I like very very. Yeah, so what he's a very failed anarchist. He's your most frequent guest. I think you said when we did the lockdowns, we did the most offers.

I think he's a stud, but stuck to you. Okay. Listen, I'm really the line. I am relaxed. I know there's that line about you got to wake up pretty in the morning But it's convinced me that Dave's just a stud you really got to wake me up in the morning. Dave is hours asleep Dave's a six hour guy, you know, in his in his mind that's a stud and by the way You're talking to a guy that also respects people who get proper ample amount of sleep. Okay, so he's part of the area on a Huffington camp. You can't put it. Sleepy day.

Sleepy day. Well, anyway, so you're unique. So I guess part of Pat's questioning. You're a nice guy. That's nice. So for you, you're probably like having an anarchist. It's like I roll out of bed at noon. It's what I do with an anarchist.

But for the most of the people in the audience, probably not too familiar with what the substantive beliefs of anarchiar, when I hear anarchia, I'm like this guy's a wild man. You seem pretty, you know, nice guy. So explain what anarchia is, and why people should maybe consider that for their ideology.

Well, I remember when I was in college, I was thinking of bioethics course, and there was this kind of chart that spanned the range of what the biopathics range of ideas were. And one part of the chart was legalism, which is basically the idea that what the government defies as moral is moral, and the other half is that antinominism, which is the belief that morals are independent of the law. And the author went on to say, well, since no one believes in antinobinism, it's somewhere

else in this chart, well, that is the belief in antinobinism. That something is not moral simply because it's legal. And something is not immoral simply because it's legal. That morality precedes law. And that politicians or anyone else who tries to assume authority have to be held accountable to a higher power. But also the belief that government, democracy, all these things are inherently illegitimate

and can never be made valid or coherent even. So you're saying there's an influence between morality and legality? Yes, and I don't think that's a particularly controversial perspective in that aspect of anarchism. And then how do you define morality? Who's the authority on morality? Is the Bible, is it God?

Is it Jesus, is it Muhammad? Where do you come from, is it human? Muhammad, that's what that was. That's what it was. No, that's what you. That's what you, that's what's Muhammad. I mean, I really bet on the wrong bank on this one. No, morality is something Rand,

I'm Rand talks about very frequently, and this again is independent of anarchism. Morality is something that we all have to deal with. We have no choice. We all have to face moral issues on a daily basis. We may not tend to think of them or it's moral like, okay, am I going to go to the school to check up on how my kid's doing or am I going to spend time at business or am I going to be with my mistress?

These are all moral questions, even though they may not be framed, but maybe the last one most certainly would be. So the point being that morality and our conscience is something that is inescapable. And there are very many mechanisms promulgated by the corporate press to try to make things seem morally ambiguous or seem morally incorrect.

And this is just one of the other many reasons why I and so many other people, not specifically anarchists, have so much contempt for corporate journalists. Well, I just search what is anarchy, right? Anarchopasophism, okay. Is a form of anarchism which completely rejects the use of violence in any form for any purpose.

The main precedent was Henry David Thoreau who, through his work, civil disobedience, influence both Leo Tolstoy and Mahatma Gandhi's advocacy of non-violent resistance. So I think when you and I talk last time, I'm trying to... I asked, I said, would that be possible today in America? You were pretty confident that it wouldn't be hard to get there. So if we wanted to, if you had it your way, let's just say today, Michael Mellis wins 2024 election on nine hours of sleep.

How am I running for office? I know you're not, but let's just say if you are, okay. Dream big. And you're able to do certain policies that you would like to implement in US, what would some of those policies be? You mean like what kind of guillotine? There you go.

That's one French revolution vibes. Who goes first? I don't, okay. This is a great question. This is what happens when you wake me up early. Who goes first? This is what happens when you wake me up early. The last time I'm strapping and it's like,

all right, because I do have a list. No, I do not believe in the list. I'm not even really kidding. I don't believe that someone can ethically be a politician and serve, but to answer your question in a different way, no, I'm not a pacifist. And the only policies I would be interested in doing is to, you know, destroy as many swathes of government as possible and to have consequences for government officials as

much as possible for their depravity. So if you don't, then the government runs without having any politicians and the people are managing themselves with the laws and the guidelines and the rules, all of that. That's kind of how you- It's not necessarily managing themselves. For example, if I go to a department store, there's a system of governance in place. I can, no shirts, no shoes, no services, something like that.

There's some store will have you can return things, some stores have you can't return things. So basically, you would have this kind of localized, excuse me, very localized, very decentralized sense of governance. Because this is kind of myth that anarchism is the idea of no rules, but that's not accurate at all. If I go to your house, if you're having a white party

and I got to wear white, it's certainly within your rights to say you're not wearing white, get the F out of my house. So it is, it is inescapable that someone is going to have jurisdiction over certain areas, the point being to have someone insinuate themselves as the state in between these relationships is illegitimate. How does that look like? So let's so So you're saying it would be self-regulated like we would self-regulate. We do that now again

I'm here. I'm came at your time. I am doing your podcast. I can't just do whatever I want I'm following certain principles and then if I don't at a certain point you can either tell me to leave or if it gets extreme you call security So this is something that not only is not hypothetical. It's something we live 24-7 you know 365 days a year and Anarchism is you know voluntary cooperation exchange is the basis of any healthy society and the Problems only come through public crime governments or private crime criminals So if that's the case, but we're we're right now What country today is running on that system?

So anarchism isn't a location anarchism is a relationship So anytime you have two people or two organizations or two entities or more where they have no Simulance of authority higher than them, that is an anarchist relationship. And let me give you a good example. We don't have a world government, right? So if an American, I apologize for this, if an American kills a Canadian in Mexico, who has jurisdiction?

No one. But they still have some mechanism in place between the three of them because every country is in a state of anarchism toward every other country. So anarchism again isn't like a place, it's a relationship between different entities. How does that work in interpersonal relationships? So let's say with a husband and wife, or a husband's in charge.

Husbands in charge. That's it, bottom line. It's the best answer I'm gonna hear all day, but. That's what Muhammad was right. Yeah, okay, so. It almost sounds like you sound like a pastor. It's like you know, you gotta have a relationship with God. It's what it is, you know, it's it almost sounds like you you sound like a pastor. It's like you know, you got to have a relationship with God It's what it is, you know, it's not a word Christianity's not a religion. It's a relationship with God, you know

Muslim is not it's a relationship. It's a relationship But at the same time if you say anarchy So if if because the way you sound you sound super convincing, okay,? Oh, okay. And you're a, you're obviously very sharp guy. Your history, stuff, you know, guys coming up to you, helping out with writing, you do such a good job. They thank you, but they say, please, let's make sure we don't have to say that you did this because of your background and what you believe in.

You're very sharp guy with your background. You've been on Rogan. I don't know how many times you've been on Rogan. It's either eight or six. Okay, that's a lot of times to be on Rogan. How do you not know the number? He pulled two episodes because we have the N word. Okay, so he's six.

Got it. Talk about anarchy. But okay, so, but you sound convincing. If it's that convincing, Michael, why aren't more people doing it? Is it the argument is? I'll tell you, I'll answer your question. Yeah, absolutely.

So there's an essay in the anarchist's handbook by Emma Goldman and she gets into why the majority cannot reason. So the vast majority of people are not capable of rational discourse particularly when it comes to politics. So any kind of and democracy exploits this. First of all, they don't often have time, but second, they often don't have mental capacity. But again, the popularity of an idea is not at all a testament to its veracity or lack of veracity. If that were true, then the funniest show in history would be how the Big Bang Theory, which of course I don't think anyone will say with a straight face is the case, but that's the most popular sitcom that either now or has ever been. So there are several reasons.

One is why it's not more popular. People in power, especially those who are in power illegitimately, have an enormous vested interest and enormous incentive to maintain their power and to increase their power. And for over a century now, the state has been raising America's children as its own, taking them since now they want it younger and younger, and inculcating them with ideas that if you received them for the first time as an adult, you would regard as absurd, but since you've been kind of trained to accept them as plausible since you're four or five years old, you don't even bat an eye when you're the repeated to you

as an adult, such as the idea that we all understand here in this room, maybe it's different for the Canadian, that our stock receive is illegitimate, right? Just someone was born to some king, and now this guy is going to some queen, and now this person is going to some queen and now this person is going to have some kind of position to dictate terms of your life, take money if you think this is crazy.

But somehow, there's a lot of your neighbors believe something that they now as a group have the power to take your freedoms away. That is regardless sanity. It's in the anarchist perspective, it's as completely insane. What was the first anarchi community? What was the first anarchi community? I don't know what you would consider the first Anarchy community? What was the first Anarchy community? I don't know what you would consider the first Anarchy community. I'm just Googleing the right now and I put Anarchy in this list of Anarchist communities.

So, which one would be meaning? Because you said it's not a country, it's a relationship, right? That's what you said. But again, these little communities are very much in the anarcho-capitalist, excuse me, an anarcho-communist way. And they often didn't last very long. Yeah, I guess. So, but the idea of anarchy, what was the first inception of the idea of anarchy? What year was that? Again, it again, zero, the year 5,000 BC anarchism, again, is a relationship. So whatever you have, people interacting with each other without any kind of sovereign or ruler over them

That is an example of anarchism working. It's not a place and it's not a time So an example would be two friends. Yeah, here we go Here's I'll give you some examples. Okay, you ready? Here's some example. It's sub-Googleing listen I'm gonna read this to you. I want to read this to you and then I give you a question and our key is a society without a government Okay, okay, it may all I don't care what the computer says I want to read this to you. And then you give me the idea. I'm gonna ask your question. Anarchy is a society without a government. It may all be- I don't care what the computer says. I'm just, because for me, it's for smart guys like you don't need it, I'm trying to get,

I'm not there yet. But I don't think Wikipedia is- I know, let me just read this, my goal. So anarchy is a society without a government. It may also refer to society or group of people that entirely rejects a set hierarchy. Anarchy was first used in English dictionary in 1539, an absence of government. That's kind of what I was wanting to know, like when did it get started? So 1539, the idea came about like first time using a dictionary.

Pierre Joseph Proudin adopted anarchy and anists in his 1840 treaties what is property, and then it goes into explaining the rest of us. But go ahead, you were gonna say something about anarchy with a relationship of friends. Just because the word was used to the first time of a certain year does not mean the concept or the philosophy was original to that year or time. I'll give examples of anarchism working, music,

cuisine, mathematics, astronomy. These are all anarchist systems, meaning there is no sovereign, there's no government regulating it. These are individuals and organizations working together voluntarily and creating systems. Those are all examples of working anarchist systems. So good, but the question becomes can that be can those philosophies, so for you, if anarchy is a relationship and it's used in those different sects, then what would be an ideal situation for you for there to not be a government? Well, I don't know about ideal because I think when you start getting into ideals, it

starts becoming a little bit incoherent. But yes, not necessarily not be a government, but the understanding that the government isn't hardly a legitimate. And frankly, a lot of what the government does, and I'm sorry, I have my back to you, by the way, a lot of what the government does is a function of so many people being trained to regard it as legitimate and basically bend the knee

when they don't otherwise have to. Interesting. You were gonna say, go ahead with the music. Yeah. So the examples were used in a music side if you can elaborate. I think part of the reason that Pat's Googling stuff and I'm asking these questions is,

because we generally don't know about this kind of stuff. So for you, you're like, I talk about this every single day. Come on. No, I'm saying that Wikipedia's often a very incoherent and poor resource when you're dealing with fair enough, but I mean, it gives us a good baselineoherent and poor resource when you're dealing with fair enough But I mean it gives us a good baseline for what's going on

I think it gives a bad that's my point if you're starting with you are true anarchist Provincent true I just don't regard Wikipedia as really like coherent resource When it comes to most things. I don't think it's a controversial opinion Okay, so why don't we go a little bit more modern while Tom's got a question for him. Can you rob maybe this is at his standard? And before we go into a chat GBT and what NRK is, let us go to our sponsor gold co. Okay. What all the mess going on right now in the economy,

the all the mess that's going on with Silicon Valley bank, all the conversations people are having even just this week. Do I move my money out of this? Do I move my money out of that? Do I move my money out of that? Nobody can predict what's going on today. Not the biggest experts, just a few months ago, guy named Kramer, not even a few months ago. A month ago, Kramer is saying,

wow, Silicon Valley bank is a good buy. It's this, it's that. And that's the guy that's supposed to be the one everybody takes advice from. Boom, next thing, you know, Silicon Valley bank, $200 billion dollar company goes belly up and now people are looking at other places that this could happen to,

which we'll cover here in the podcast momentarily. This is the point, you can't predict the future, I cannot predict the future. The whole part is about how we can hedge against what could possibly happen and one of the ways to hedge against a market crash is to have gold in your portfolio, a small percentage of your money

you ought to consider having into gold in the company. We work with this gold coal, we've done a percentage of your money, you ought to consider having it to gold. And the company, we work with as Goldco, we've done a lot of research on these guys, they got plenty of positive reviews. I've talked to people that I've worked there directly, people that I've known for 15, 16 years. And so for us, Goldco is a six time ink 5000 winner, 2022 company, the year with billions of five,

thousands of five star reviews and they've helped people like you and me place over billion dollars in gold and silver. The item of yours could get up to $10,000 and free silver and a free one-ounce silver round of Reagan coin would qualified order. I don't think it was an anarchist and call them today at 855-594-2758-855-594427588555942758 or go to goalco.com forward slash pbd goalco.com forward slash pbd Rob, tell us what chat GBT maybe that's at at Michael standards because Wikipedia is obviously questionable by everybody. Okay, right.

Yeah. What is chat what anarchy? Yeah, exactly. Did you question it already or no? Is it it's a currently that capacity? It's a capacity. But I may be able to try it over here. Yeah, you keep doing what you're doing

when you get to let us know. You had one job. Yeah, Rob's. Can't even get on chat GBT. It sounds like complete anarchy. What's going on in chat GBT? Rob, Rob has a rough couple of weeks, even though I know he's doing his best.

But go ahead. So a question for you. Every now and then, whether it's missionaries or anthropologists discover small groups of people, indigenous people that have hitherto been not discovered. And observation is they have some very basic morays and folkways, and they've just sort of assembled among themselves. Would you call that anarchist groups? No, because they almost, they always, I want to say almost always, because I'm not anthropologists, but they do have a very rigid uh... legal

and hierarchical structure there's a chieftain uh... and and their laws that are enforced and so that and so even though absent influence of any of the government structures or but they do the government strike david judicial system is just primitive right there you can finish sure okay um system is just primitive, right? They're here to finish. Sure. Okay. So they're absent any of like, oh, you live in Luxembourg and there's the king or whatever. They've been absent that. There hasn't been an outside influence on them like that.

They've just grown inside, but because they've grown a higher-courst structure, maybe it's patriarchal, whatever it is, that is their government and therefore that's not an anarchist group. Right. And I think it also depends on the size. I don't think some of these primitive societies are actually quite... I'm not just like the dozen people, they're actually quite sizeable, and do have a functional government structure. Something that just came to my head.

So where do you stand on the whole defund the police? Because obviously police or even military military this is part of government. I'm for a police abolition and having the market provide security. Whenever you have the government having its security is far too important of a service to have a monopoly on it, let alone a government monopoly. And when you have a government monopoly on any product or service, the consequences always strife shortages and other negative externalities. Do you want the free market to be the authority on anything security police? I wouldn't say the authority, but yes, the free market provides, which provides security far better,

just the way that provides food, far better education, far better, and everything else far better, then would the government monopoly? Well, there's no accountability when you come to having any kind of monopoly. People understand this about, you know, if you had like, let's suppose an oil monopoly, which never happened, but let's suppose you had an oil monopoly, that monopoly is not going to be accountable to consumers of the market. But when you have a government monopoly, somehow in security, everyone's like, well, what are you going to do?

Well, the answer is to have decentralization and also to have as much of an armed population as possible. And how does law and order, constitution, just basic framework of what's going on in democracy? How would that be? So, anarchism is the mother of order, not the daughter. So if you have, again, the best way to have order between any kind of people's organizations is to have it be voluntary and agreed upon. So we have contracts, right? If I go into a business with you, we sit down ahead of time and basically

work out the divorce. We're like, all right, these are your responsibilities. These are my responsibilities. What happens if, you know, you get sick and you can't work it out. What happens if I get sick if I don't fulfill my terms with the contract? So whenever you have any sort of voluntary interchange between two people or two or more organizations, it's going to be far more peaceful. And when you have far more of an idea of self-reliance and you have accountability in the entities that are providing any given service, it's going to be far more efficient and far more pervasive and widely available. Food used to be a huge problem even in this country. Nowadays, you know, the problem is there's too much food and everyone's obese.

So clothing is another one. We make so many clothes, you know, back in the day, people had one pair of shoes and you had to wear it all your life. Now we have so many clothes, we're shipping them overseas and there's little landfills of these crappy t-shirts. What do you think about communism? Well, that's the point of this book. Okay, tell us one.

Well, it's really bad. The point of writing the white pill, and this has nothing to do with anarchism at all, the book, the point of the white pill is I was kind of disquieted, you know, being born in the former Soviet Union, to what extent it has been almost being forgotten. And this is something that ended in our lifetime, the lifetime of everyone here,

and probably the vast majority of people listening as well, and what people went through for decades on the far side of the Iron Curtain was so disturbing, and also so hard for us to wrap our heads around. We, I don't know if any of you have diabetes, I don't, right? If someone tried to tell you what it's like living with diabetes, it's going to be very different from actually living it, right? We can wrap our heads around, okay, I can't have candy.

Are there other health externalities? Can I exercise? Maybe I'm going to take a marathon, I'm going to have to do certain things. It's, we're still not going to get there intellectually unless you live it. So we can maybe understand, okay, I'm in school, I'm taught certain things or someone's listening to me on the phone or people get arrested and you're powerless to anything about it. We can maybe understand each of those elements

individually. But in terms of understanding that pervasive atmosphere, the tagline of the book, let me get the exact quote, when Rand was testifying from the Congress, he said, it's almost impossible to convey to a free people what it's like to live in a totalitarian dictatorship. So I try to explain throughout the course of this book just what it was like. And even I don't really understand it. My protege was just in Prague, they've sung there called the Museum of Communism. And you know, what's great about this museum is it's not written this Western style in the scholarly manner, because it's like, according to these demented ideas, we're all supposed to have food, but instead we're starving.

And when I was, when he sent me all the photos of the captions because I wanted to quote one for the book, it made me appreciate for the first time what it was like for my family in the sense of totalitarianism. You know, this is stupid pun, but it's not a pun, but it means total. So it's everywhere. There's nowhere to go. From the moment you're born till the time you die and you're told you can't leave. So let's suppose there's a politician you hate

or you hate politics in general, you hate Trump, you think Biden's a fool. You can watch sports, you can listen to music, you can read books, historical books or contemporary books. Yes, they're trying to put politics to everything, but there's certainly very many venues where you could escape or even just talk into your friends.

They didn't have that. And even just talk into your friends, you have to wonder, all right, did Pat turn? Is someone, did someone get to him? Or is he just doing this for status for money? So that kind of sense of having something the government and that ideology, govern every aspect of your life, is something that I think is important for those of us

who love any semblance of freedom, Republican or Democrat to appreciate. So you know, that argument again goes to that could work for those that are independent, they can take care of themselves. But if you can't and you and I have to police everybody, do I already wanna deal with police and everybody? Or I already wanna, you know, if there isn't, so what is- Are you growing your own food?

What do you think about law and order? What do you think about law? What do you think about law and order? Wait, hold on, are you growing your own food? What do you think about law and order? What do you think about law? What do you think about law and order? Hold on, are you growing your own food? What do you think about law and order? I'm favor of order. I don't think law is a good mechanism of getting order. Okay, so what order are you a fan of?

Just the people in the community deciding what it is? Or I'm a favor of people behaving peacefully, which is overwhelmingly the norm. And in fact, the problem is that so much crime is granted legitimacy and is not punished as a consequence due to having a government monopoly on policing. Okay, so you're not a fan of law? No, I think having a monopoly means that

product of service is not going to be distributed well, or if at all. We have right now, and no one even thinks this is weird. Prosecutors, a lot of times I'll be like, yeah, I'm not going to prosecute this. How is that law? That's crazy? I understand you're taking one one element of it, but if you we had Gordon Chang on I don't know if you know Gordon Chen is so Gordon Chen who lived in China for 20 some years and He says China was a mess when there was no law because little to no law. And he says in 1984, some number like that, he said there was four universities

that gave away law degrees because it wasn't something that was popular and they realized capitalism doesn't work without laws because somebody can bully and take advantage of the other person. What is your POV of not needing law? So anyway, I find it crazy to think that there's no bullying in China, especially via the state. I mean, the whole point of the communist process is that... A lot less than before.

This is why their innovation grew the way it has the last 40 years, because they added laws, which they didn't have before. They did have laws, but that law is basically the will of whoever the CP official was. And that's the problem. The problem is the laws don't apply to a Joe Biden or Donald Trump, like they would apply to you or me, or to someone who's much poorer than us. If you had a system where services are provided by freedom, it's going to be a lot more equitable and it's going to be a lot more coherent.

Because if I am trying to get, I'm promoting a product or service, I need to be a lot more equitable and it's going to be a lot more coherent because if I am trying to get I'm promoting a product or service. I need to be able to put my money where I'm out this whereas if a cop shoots someone It's like, well, oops. You're just gonna be suspended and get a pension It's absolutely the double standard between something with the monopoly and something that is provided when there's an element of Competition is just night and day. So you're see if there's no cops people and right now i'm saying there's no i was saying if there's no government monopoly there's no government cops if you if you if you say there's no government i'll give you an example that's happening this hypothetical yeah so

everyone here if you go to a bar which is full of young males full of testosterone and alcohol it is still safer there than in the places where the government is providing security, such as city parks at night, alleys, the subways. When you have, there's no incentive for a government monopoly to provide its service. And in fact, the worse it provides its service, the more taxes, the politicians are there in a position to demand the populace pay-in because they could say, look, we have a problem, we need more of this, we need more of that. So when things are provided privately and hotels is another good example, everyone in a hotel

is not native to the area where they're in. It's still safer in a hotel than in public housing where everyone actually lives there and you know who lives there. You sound so convincing. But how do you argue with this? But here who lives there. You sound so convincing. But how do you argue with this? But here's a part, you sound so convincing. If your ideas are so perfect, the way you sell them, how come others are not implementing it?

You can't tell me it's because, well, the way the world has ruled, the people of power are so power hungry that they eventually go up there and all of them unite and they don't want to do anything and they're not willing to give up their powers and the privileges. And this is why the idea of anarchy has never been because I get it and these other guys don't, right? So, if it's so perfect the way you do, it's perfect. If it's as good as the way you sell it, why aren't smart people out there implementing

it? Because the government co-ops smart people. The whole point of our university system is to train the next generation of a... Maybe 80%. Do you want to hear my answer? Maybe 80%? There's a couple of things. First of all, I think all of us would agree here that alcohol prohibition was a bad idea,

which did not, I don't think, at all, decrease the amount of alcohol consumption in this country or maybe marginally, but vastly increase the amount of crime in this country. How was it that alcohol prohibition was such a popular idea that it got two-thirds of the Congress and was the three-quarters of the states to ratify it? Because there's very many examples. The broader speaking, politics are non-rational.

There's an entire system in place where people will vote for their tribe as opposed to the other tribe and not really care if any of their ideas or views are implemented just so long as their team wins. And we just something we're taught. If you ask conservatives why are you voting for Dr. Oz, he supported Jesse Smolette, he supported trans kids.

They're going to say, well, what do you want me to do? Vote for Federman? These are my only options. So we're trained since kids that your only options are voting. And the two choices are Republican or Denver. No, I don't disagree with that. I don't disagree with what you just said. And also one more thing, just sorry, this is very key because

Nome Chomsky, who's also an anarchist, a prominent linguist as well, he has this great quote, I'm sorry I'm gonna butcher the exact wording, he goes, the way to control a society is to have strictly delineated terms of argument, but have very vigorous debate between those terms.

So, Jimmy Dora, I don't know if you ever had him on the show, just great deal. I'm surprised that Nome said that, and when I asked him, if he would ever debate Thomas Sol, he avoided it. Well, I don't know if you ever had him on the show, just great. I'm surprised that Nome said that. And when I asked him if he would ever debate Thomas Sol, he avoided it. Well, I'm not surprised this Friday. Yeah, I'm very surprised he didn't want to talk to Thomas Sol. Yeah, it was on two weeks ago.

Jimmy's great, but he gave an example of this. Like if you watch the view, the choices are going to be, should we, can I curse? Yeah. Should we bomb the shit out of Syria? Or should we bomb the fucking shit out of Syria, right? We're always presented with a very limited range of options on, and then you think, okay, I have CNN or Fox,

but that's basically where the Overton window lies. So any ideas that are radical threat to the governing structure are going to be marginalized, and you're gonna be told until very recently where you had independent venues like this, that you're crazy crazy or this is impossible or it will never happen. And for many people, there is still to this day.

There's a huge social cost in adopting, and there's a huge social cost in adopting an ideology that's regard as marginal or unpopular. I don't know about that. I don't know. You don't think it's a social cost? No, I, okay. So what I think you're doing is super necessary,

is because you're making people think, right? You're making people think and say, okay, he sounds convincing, he sounds very confident, doesn't necessarily mean you're right, but it's good the fact that you were having this score, right? And the other is kind of like, well Pat, he made a good point, you don't know what you're talking about, you need to do your research on this,

we gotta go read this, here's our, okay, well Michael, Patrick asked that question, you're doing really give the right answer, great, let them decide on what they want to do. research on this. We gotta go read this. Here's one. Okay, well Michael, Patrick asked that question. You're doing really give the right answer. Great, let them decide on what they want to do. But here's the part. So what I think has happened the last few years is we've shown with this tool. We got right now, whatever, 9100 people live watch.

And by the time this is gonna be done within a two hour period, 100,000 people will watch it. 24 hours, all the clips together. Say we got four, five million people. I'll watch this to get the sorry, you know, okay. We didn't have this 20 years ago, right? So 20 years ago, Michael Mellus, you would have had to go on the traditional way

of maybe instead of sleep in nine hours, you would have slept in seven and a half hours to make it because a tool like this is an outer to market is so it would have been much harder for a guy like you to make it to where you are today, right? Today the tools allow you to live the life that you've always dreamt about living, which is phenomenal. Yes.

However, here's what I think is this tool is given. And you may disagree. If 20 years ago somebody said, guys, in 20 years, trans people are going to be accepted. Men are going to be transitioning into women and competing. And the Democratic Party, who's always been, they claimed they're four women, they're feminists. They're going to be okay with men, saying they're women, competing against women, beating records, and they're gonna be cornered to, and trans, they're gonna be all over the place, and Drew Barrymore is gonna bring a person in, Dylan, and she's gonna get on her knees in front of him

and say, I totally understand your pain, that'll never happen. I'm telling you, that's what's gonna happen. But let me tell you, what else is gonna happen? What's that? You don't think these CNN, the Fox, all these guys, you have what about them? They're gonna get crushed by this guy named Joe.

What are you talking about? Just regular Joe. It's just a regular Joe. He's not a regular Joe. I'm telling you CNN and Fox are gonna be crushed by guy named Joe. What does this guy do? Is he a billionaire? Does he have more money than them? No, he just talks and makes people think and brings different people on. So what has he done? Do you know marijuana that is illegal today? Yeah.

That guy's going to make people think marijuana is not a big deal. And matter of fact, he's going to bring the richest guy in the world on. And that guy's going to smoke weed. And then he's going to the next day, the market's going to come after him, but now smoking weed is no longer what it was before. Get the hell out of you, Michael, you're out of your mind. That'll never happen in America conservative. No, it is.

It is, I'm telling you. And you're not even gonna think twice. When last week, I'm in Bahamas three, four days, I mean, the other day, I'm in a game. We'll walk by my kids. What is that smell? It's a, what is that animal that smells like weed? It's a skunk.

Skunk. Oh, that's what a skunk smells like. Skunk, you didn't know. Yeah, that's a skunk. I'm like, oh, really? Yeah, that's a skunk, son. That's a skunk. Skunk. Oh, that's what a skunk smells like. You didn't know skunk back then. Yeah, that's a skunk. I'm like, oh, really? Yeah, that's a skunk, that's what it is. Okay, cool. That's not skunk, man.

It's like five minutes later, Dylan's smiling. I'm like, no wonder it's so happy right now. So no one cares about smoking weed today. 20 years ago, it was crazy. So this is the point I'm trying to make to you, Michael, and take this personal. I want you to get upset. I'm not going to get upset.

And say, screw you, Pat. I'm not going to say that. Yeah, that's good. get upset. I'm not going to get upset. And say screw you, Pat. I'm not going to say that. That's good. Here's what I would say. If the last 20 years, some of the craziest, wackiest ideas are not being talked about, and some of the things that the conservatives would have

never accepted are now saying, it's just weed. Maybe your argument isn't that good, or maybe you're just not good at presenting your argument for other people to pick it up, because if there's ever been a time to sell your philosophies to be received, by millions of people around the world now is the time,

how can there's not be that kind of moment to me yet? The anarchist handbook hit number three on Amazon. 20 years ago, that book wouldn't have been published. So if you're asking me why we haven't gone from the state in 2003 to anarchism today, I haven't been at it that long. Secondly, I don't think you're going to deny, if you look at social media and other outlets, which are imperfect, but certainly loose vectors

or metrics, rather, by how popular ideas are, the views that I'm putting forward are infinitely more popular than they were 20 years ago. And it is a result of exactly what you're talking about. The fact that now, when we were, before we were born, I think you and I around the same age, you had three television stations. And it's ABC, NBC, CBS.

And if you argue, if you went back in time and you're like, they're like, we have choices. My friend really loves CBS, but he's an idiot. You know you've got to listen to ABC and what it all was was corporate media. And they all basically have the same message, if not that identical message. Nowadays, then Fox started.

And it's like, oh my God, we have Fox. We got to put Fox out of business. These people are crazy. I think most people need to have to look at Fox. They think that the average age of a Fox viewer is deceased. And that it is, to regard Fox as an vector of kind of radicalism as opposed to maybe like hardcore Republican outlet is absurd. You're not going to really find much radicalism on Fox, other than maybe sometimes the master

of it. You know what would be a great commercial? You know it would be a great commercial. You just give me an idea. If CNN or any of these guys wanted to kind of make a commercial to bash Fox, all they have to do is go run out of cemetery, put a TV there and Fox TV all over the place. The only people that listen to Fox are dead people, listen to CNN, listen to ABC. That'd be it. That'd be it. Pretty. Let me let me ask you this. So your position is that it's a great thing

that this trans-stuffs having in sports. No, I don't think. I'm just saying, if a crazy idea like that has created this kind of momentum, how come your wonderful idea hasn't? I don't think that ideas necessarily become popular as a function of how true or... But I think Joe's idea is a great idea

that create a momentum. People who were not on his side said that makes sense. Right, so what I'm saying is sometimes great ideas do catch fire and become popular and sometimes really deranged ideas do catch fire and become popular because we do, because how ideas are formed in this country

and in most country is in a function of people sit down, they do the research, they look at both sides and they kind of maybe argue with their neighbors. This is just this enlightenment delusion about how people come to the public conclusions. People far often read Jonathan Heitzbuk, the righteous mind, people come to their political conclusions for evolutionary reasons, meaning I want the bandwagon effect. You know, after Kennedy was shot, they asked people who you voted for in the 1960 election, which was the closest election in American history. And the percentage of people who had remembered, I think sincerely, that they had voted

for Kennedy over Nixon, was far more than the number of people actually did it, because we tend to want to think of ourselves as being on the winning side. Low status people have an enormous incentive to not rock the boat, because they're not in a position to kind of have radical ideas because think about it, if I go to an office and I have some kind of wacky ideology and I'm not empowered right away in my group. So this is one of the many reasons why ideas that are radical are not necessary. But it's something broader. I don't care about popularity of an idea because I don't think politics is moved by the majority. Politics is often... I don't disagree.

Yeah. Politics is always moved by an informed ideological, usually radicalized minority, and this country was founded by a bunch of very small percentage of people who had a vision, and they didn't even bother asking the masses what they thought about it. So then that says, if if since 1539 this has been an idea how come it's died I don't think it's died at all I think the idea that government is inherently legitimate is more popular now than anything that's an anarchy philosophy I think that is that's the definition of anarchy no but but a but a lot of people both on the left and the right

would agree that the government is too big not the government I didn't say too big I not the government government itself just concept so in government. I didn't say too big. Not the government, government itself. The concept of government. So in your world, there shouldn't be a government. Or the idea of the government is not legitimate, yes. I don't think people would say the legitimate, the final legitimate. Something that legitimate, for a government to be legitimate

means it is in a moral position to enact its edicts upon its subjects. Okay, so if so in other words, I don't think government is a legitimate meaning it's not necessary. No, it doesn't like I don't have a right to go in your wallet and take money, right? But somehow the withholding tax is where people think, well, taxes are the price you pay for civilized society. That to me and to other anarchists is not legit how far off are you from uh... iron rants philosophy well ran hated anarchists uh... issues on the cover of the book you know she's the first chapters her testifying in front of the house and american

activities committee uh... if you it's funny because you know her kind of objectivism i don't like calling it a cult but it's it basically has cult-like aspects. But what she describes as galt's galt in Atlas Shrugged is effectively a private anarchist community. Who else is on that book, by the way? It's Mark Guthatcher, Emma Goldman,

and Elena Chachezcu. And why did you pick those four? I wanted to, since the book is dealing about the holiday more, starving millions of people in Ukraine concentration camps the Gulags the show trials the Stasi and ultimately the fall of the Soviet Union and its subject satellite states I wanted the there's a Jane Wiedeland was a singer it was excuse me the rhythm guitars for the go-goes and she had this comment about their music

Which is a very new wave music, that it sounds very chipper, but if you look at the lyrics, they're very, very sad. So I wanted the cover to be like, all right, the content is going to be very, very dark, but I wanted to be like sunny and almost silly. So the cover looks like kind of like a 1970s, like a movie poster or a play poster, and you would think it's kind of a romance novel, but I wanted to have that bright, sunny cover given that the contents are so dark and disturbing. Michael, were you born in Ukraine? Yes, sir. Okay, so what do you think about what's going on right now in Ukraine?

I don't think I have a very informed perspective on what's going on. My big concern, my background, you know, we talked before, I did a book on North Korea called Dear Reader about Kim Jong-il. And my big concern is that we're facing a replication of the Korean War. In the Korean War, you had North Korea with the great leader Kim Il Sung, backed by Mao

and Stalin, China, Russia, China and Russia respectively. You had a Sigmundanry in the South, backed by the US and the UN, and one that ended up happening is Korea, the Korean peninsula was leveled, and the devastation for the people was enormous. So I'm very concerned that there is enormous pressure, understandably, to not reach any kind of settlement, and that the people who are going to end up paying the price of the Ukrainian people. That's my concern. People who are going to end up paying the price of the Ukrainian people if they don't find a way to settle. Or even, it seems like there's no good solution here.

Because if they're settling and you're going to say, okay, not you, I mean, the argument is you're validating Putin's aggression, he's gonna do it again, that's a fair argument, that it's like, well, you can't settle, not give an inch, but then like, yeah, but you're, we're here in America, we're not paying the price. But in an anarchy philosophy, you gotta kind of leave it alone, right?

And let them kind of do their own part. I, I, I don't think this is really a question of libertarian, Republican, Democrat, or anarchist. I think this is just a question of right. What is the facts of the matter? And I don't think I have the facts on this issue. How is that possible? It's like your homeland, like if something happens to me.

This is my homeland. I left here. I get that. But like, is there any affinity to Ukraine for you? None. Zero. No, we spoke Russian. God.

I don't even speak Ukrainian. So you were born in Ukraine by left when I was one and a half. So it's not like I found memories. And it's not like we left because it was so great. And again, but this was the Soviet Union. So Ukraine in 78 is going to be very different from Ukraine in 2023. And also Moscow in 78. It's going to be a different. That's a little strange though. You're a pretty well-read guy and you're pretty smart guy to say, I don't have any opinion on the country I was born in. That's going like, it's the topic of discussion on every single channel right now. Yeah.

Okay, so if they're, so okay, so let's, do you support the fact that US is given the kind of money they're giving and they're helping them out in this war in a proxy war type of thing that's going on. Do you support that? I don't know because I don't know where this is going. Are we going to say that we're going to just fund it terminably? Yeah. Yeah. Because that seems to be the premise in which case the Ukrainians are going to be involved into fight and then one day what are we going to cut and run and then they're left holding the bag. So that is my concern.

Okay. It's, here's the thing. It's not like Ukraine, Russia or the US are going to somehow disregard the legitimacy of government overnight. So this is not a situation where there's like an anarchist answer or I'm in a position or an authority to speak for anarchism. Then if that's the case, the anarchist will never happen if that's the case. It's happening right now. This is us. This is anarchism. No, but this is at a very, very low level. Anarchist will let me rephrase that. For anarchy to happen at the highest level based on what you're saying, it'll never happen. But there is no highest level under anarchism.

The whole point is that if you find, if you want to say that anarchism can only work in a small community, fine, let us have our community and leave us alone. Okay, so that's then that's what you're then. You would you would you would much rather have your own community. You go live in with a bunch of anarchists and you guys create your own guidelines. You got land.

You're happy with it. They don't have to be anarchists. I mean, it doesn't. Here's the thing. Do you regard if they're not anarchists, if guys create your own guidelines, you got land, you're happy with it. They don't have to be anarchists. I mean, it doesn't, here's the thing. Do you regard, if they're not anarchists, if one of them is, if one of them is ambitious and he says, look, I have ambitions in an anarchist system, that guy's eventually going to go and say, here's what I think we should be doing. And if that guy's got better ideas than yours or is better at selling it, then you then eventually it's going to convert into a different kind of a government when you die.

Not necessarily because I don't. That doesn't make any sense. Absolutely. I'd love to hear it, yeah. Better ideas are not the ones that always went out as prohibition demonstrated because then we repeal the several years later. There's many examples of the markets where bad ideas work for a temporary period than they're rejected.

But let me just speak to your point earlier. Do you, if the Chinese government right now passed a law that said everyone has to wear orange all the time, would you regard those laws as valid? If China did one. If China passed a law, a edict that said everyone, everyone on earth has to wear orange. Would you find that as legitimate? It'd be weird. That's not what I asked you. Would you regard as legitimate? Would you start wearing orange? No. Why not? Because they don't look Dutch.

Is that true? They wear orange in the... Yeah. Holland? I wouldn't wear it. It's why I'm not living there. Right. But why wouldn't you wear it?

It's... I like my choices. Okay. But do you regard there that law as legitimate or not? No. Okay. So all anarchism says is that it regards Washington's laws as legitimate as those of Asia you can say that all you want all I'm saying you was you and I will say you should this is anarchy, but you should say that that's great But to think that this is at the top level

You know, so so if I ask you those questions and then I say, well, what do you think I was going on with Ukraine and what? I'm not educated enough to come on. But you're from there. Yeah, but I'm an American myself. I understand it, but you're from there. Yeah, but I love when I was year and a half. I don't even remember anything. I'm more like a, I speak Russian. I'm like, okay, I get that. But you have these ideas of anarchy in a situation like anarchy. What should happen over there? Well, we're not there right now for us to give that opinion. Then then your argument loses weight because it can only carry, that argument can only be sold in low-level conversations,

not at high-level conversations. A conversation that carries weight and momentum is got enough backing to say it would work. If right now, let's just say the world was ran this way here's what would happen between russian Ukraine leave them alone okay then Ukraine would become russia well that's their business that that's not it at all my point is i think it's important when someone gets on a mic to come at it from an informed perspective and i think just because an issue is

very popular in the news that does not mean that it's i are you are you going to let me finish not that does not shake in my head doesn't mean you can't finish. Fine. It doesn't mean that I have to have an opinion of every single issue and I think a big problem in our culture is that everyone feels that have an opinion of every single concern. I'm not a Ukrainian. I'm not any Eastern Europe. I've never stepped foot there since I was one and a half. So I don't, I agree with you. I don't know how anarchist principles would happen in the middle of a war between Russia and Ukraine. I don't know who the good guys are.

Then it's, listen, then it's, so then it's a good conversation to have, you know, to go and on shows and all this other stuff, but it's, it doesn't carry enough weight on its own to rule and they owe to have a country around it. That's kind of what you're saying. But it's not, I'm saying it wouldn't be a country. It's a relationship. So number one. And second of all, don't I don't think that if the US was communist fascist, liberal, conservative, progressive, I don't think any of those would inform the question of, what should the US do vis-a-vis the Ukraine and Russia?

It's not a function of what government we have, what the right thing to do is over there. visa view the Ukraine and Russia. It's not a function of what government we have, what the right thing to do is over there.