The Duran Podcast - Biden White House, Failing On All Fronts w/ David Sacks (Live)

Episode Date: March 27, 2024

Biden White House, Failing On All Fronts w/ David Sacks (Live)

We are live with Alexander Mercuris, and we are very honored to have a man that probably doesn't need any introductions. But I will introduce Mr. David Sacks with Kraft Ventures and, at least for this show, one of the best political and geopolitical analysts out there. If you are not following David on Twitter, Twitter X. definitely follow David on Twitter X because he puts out some of the best commentary on politics, on geopolitics. And David, thank you very, very much for joining us on the Duran today. Well, thanks for having me. That's high praise from you guys.

I think I learn a lot from watching your pod. So, you know, you guys are kind of the top of the influencer food chain and then I'm kind of lower down and just try to help get the message out. You're as top as a guest. I was going to say I was I was going to say the same and can I just say also that I strongly urge anybody who is who doesn't follow David on X to just do so because you not only will you learn an awful lot from going there but I mean the way that David puts things very clearly and very powerfully it's incredibly impressive I mean speaking as somebody who's married an academic and English literature academic, who's always a critic for how things are expressed, she is a great admirer of the sort of forcefulness and clarity with which these things are said. And I learn huge amounts from them.

Well, thank you. That's very kind. Fantastic. So let's get started. Let me just say a quick hello to everyone that is watching us on Rockfin, on Odyssey, on Rumble, on YouTube, and on the durand.com. And a big shout out to our great, amazing moderators. have David's information in the description box down below, and I will add it as a pinned comment as well when the show is over. Alexander, David, let's talk politics. Let's talk geopolitics. Maybe we start things off with Biden, maybe Bidenomics. I don't know. What do you think, Alexander, David? No, let's actually definitely start with Biden and Bidenomics, because it may sound

extraordinary to say this, in my opinion, he is at the center of everything. He is the president of the United States. Whatever people say, the United States still makes, it still makes the weather. What happens in the United States determines whatever happens everywhere else. And the personality, the policies of the president of the United States, and his administration is crucial. And what I also am going to say is that the days when the United States could, absolve an administration that wasn't particularly strong are gone. The United States, more than ever now, needs a strong, purposeful president in charge.

Not only, in my opinion, is that not the situation we have of the present. But I think, in fact, all sorts of things of being done at many different levels, economics, legal, political, and of course foreign policy and security policy, which we're going to spend a lot of time on, by the administration, which are affecting the whole world, but also, and especially the United States, in an extremely negative way. And who better to discuss this all with than David Sachs? So, David, first of all your thoughts about the administration and about its role. I mean, am I overstating things about how important it is, both for the United States and for the world.

I know a lot of people say, it doesn't matter who is in charge, doesn't matter what kind of administration you have. Things always turn out much the same. I don't agree. I think what the administration is matters. What are your thoughts about this? I think it matters hugely, and I think this president has managed to be much more consequential than I think people thought and not in a good way. you really get the feeling now of an administration that has lost control of events. Things seem to be careening out of control in I count about five different areas. First, Ukraine. Obviously, Ukraine is being defeated on the battlefields being destroyed.

Now you have this terrorist attack on Krokas. The Russians are pointing the finger at not just the Ukrainians, but the CIA and MI6 behind them. if those allegations can be proven, it's cost us beli for World War III. So this whole thing just seems to be spiraling out of control. You already have European leaders explicitly calling for World War III, for inserting troops in Ukraine. So, you know, I think the administration had this idea at the beginning that they could fine-tune this outcome,

that they could turn up the heat on Russia, that they could weaken it, they could, you know, crush its economy. And again, it was just this hubris. that they could engineer the outcome they wanted in a fine-tune way. And I think what we're seeing is the war is escalating and it continues to escalate. And it's very dangerous. There's a lot more we can say about that. I think the second area that just feels out of controls is Gaza.

The administration's policy on this just seems incoherent. On the one hand, they say that the Israelis are bombing Gaza indiscriminately. They're saying the Israelis have gone too far. They're saying the Israelis shouldn't go into Rafa. And yet, they're providing the bombs for Israel to, to do all of those things. Now, whether you are pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian in this conflict, I think that both sides can agree that the administration's actions don't match up with their words, and it's an increherent policy. And that's why I think that the Biden administration is sort of

gradually losing the support of both sides amazingly. The third area, distraining to domestic politics, is the border. I mean, the U.S. border is open. It's a sort of festering, wound, thousands of people are streaming across every day, millions every year. We don't know who they are. They could be a security threat to the U.S. They could be criminal gangs already. Our cities seem to be overrun. They can't keep up. Even the mayors of Democrat cities like Chicago and New York have warned that they cannot keep up with the social cost, social burden of all these migrants. And yet Biden doesn't do anything about it. He told us for three years that the problem didn't exist. Now he's finally acknowledged it. But he blames it.

on the guy who tried to build a wall. This is not a credible message. Fourth area is the fiscal situation. We have a $2 trillion deficit. We've got multi-trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. And that is priming the pump. It is stimulating the economy. In nominal terms, the economy seems to be doing well,

but we still have this persistent inflation problem. And no less an economist, a Democrat economist, like Larry Summers, said the inflation problem is actually much worse than people think. It peaked last year at 18%, not 9%, he said, once you include the cost of borrowing. So, and Biden insists his latest budget keeps increasing government spending. There's just no recognition of that problem. And then I think finally, I guess the fifth one I would put is the whole lawfare situation. It just feels completely out of control. It's unprecedented for a president to try and imprison. And, uh, it's imprisoned.

and bankrupt, his main opponent in the election? I mean, this is a new low in American politics. We don't have seen anything like this before. And it was Biden himself who instigated this when there was a leak to the New York Times that he thought that Merrick Garland was being too meek and indecisive. And he wanted to see Trump prosecuted.

And after that, you know, Garland got Jack Smith to invent a wholly new crime of fraud against the American people that's never been even charged before. And then the local DAs like Alvin Bragg and Fawney Willis took their cues from Washington and have begun this law for campaign. And of course, it's not just against Trump. But we've seen now this political retaliation against Elon Musk as well.

I think it's motivated by the fact that he's opened up free speech on the X platform. And it was Biden himself from the White House podium and said, this guy needs to be looked into. And sure enough, the agencies of the U.S. government have looked into him. We've got a ridiculous government investigation against Tesla for building a glass house, supposedly, against SpaceX for not hiring enough illegal immigrants. Amazing. I mean, it's just ludicrous. His compensation package was voided despite the fact that no one thought he could achieve those numbers.

You get the sense that just retaliation is just part of the bag of tricks that this administration thinks is okay. I mean, I don't think Nixon and as wild as dreams would have thought. of pursuing tactics like this against his enemies list. I mean, the most I thought he did was get people audited. So, you know, again, this just feels like a fifth area to me that just feels out of control. The overall picture is, again, of an administration that just feels like it's losing its grip on events. And why don't I stop there and we can talk about any of those areas? Well, let's start with the last because the lawfare is, I think, extremely disturbing.

and of course it can affect everybody because if you contaminate and disrupt the legal system then everything becomes increasingly unstable and out of control. I've never known anything like this. I mean, I remember Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon worked within strong American institutions. He could not launch lawfare like this

against his opponents. The courts would have refused to cooperate with him. he had to resort to creating his own so-called intelligence agency, his own private intelligence agency, basically the plumbers, small group of detectives and ex-Cuban intelligence officers, people of that kind, to do his dirty work for him. And they did it in an utterly clumsy, chaotic, disorganized work. This, by contrast, uses the entire structure of the American government, the legal side of the American government. to go after your opponents.

Now, I come from a country, Greece, where that was common, and I can tell you how incredibly disruptive that is and how that can contaminate everything. I would not have believed it possible in the United States, yet it has happened, and it seems to me, exactly as you say, it is getting out of control. the cases against Donald Trump are dubious. The cases against Elon Musk are completely absurd. They're completely absurd. And Elon Musk is not even the president's political opponent. So what is this all for? And why is this even happening? And why don't people come out in the United States and speak out more strongly against it? I think that's a great question. I think the,

the sad reality is that the media, the mainstream media, is all in favor of it. And so they defend it. They carry water for it. They are the leading cheerleaders for censorship and weaponization. And so when the media isn't holding the politicians accountable, the politicians are free to go as far as they want to go. And I think that the, so the media has been a critical enabler of this. I mean, Nixon, by contrast, obviously, couldn't. get away with anything because he had such a hostile media. But in this case, it's all out in the open.

And I mean, you're right. You look at the details of some of these cases, the documents case against Trump. Biden did the same thing. He had the documents in the Corvette or around the Corvette in his garage. Trump is charged with a crime. Biden, it's an accident. Again, you've got the whole January 6th prosecution where the DOJ wrote a memo researching whether Trump could be prosecuted for incitement. And they determined that he couldn't be. The case wouldn't work. But that wasn't good enough for Biden. So they invented the fraud against American people charge. You've got Fawney, Willis, and Georgia turning a RICO statute, which was created to target organized crime against the Trump campaign, including its lawyers, who were acting on

under attorney-client privilege. I'm forgetting one. Alvin Bragg, he's turned a misdemeanor, a bookkeeping misdemeanor into, was it, 43 felony counts based on a yet-to-be-disclosed legal theory. So, you know, you have these prosecutors pushing the limits in a way that's never been seen before. My own view is that prosecutors should never be creative.

Prosecutors should enforce the law. Everyone should know what the law is. You don't want them inventing novel charges after the fact, certainly not to get people. But again, if the media is not going to hold these prosecutors accountable. In fact, if they're going to celebrate them, then this will continue. And I, you know, I'm sad to say that I think if Biden is elected, you'll see these types of tactics continue to be pursued in a second term against a much greater range of people. I mean, I think Trump and Elon are to the big fish.

And if the Biden administration gets away with this, they're going to start going after smaller fish. And that would be chaotic. By the way, I completely agree with your point as somebody who's worked in the legal system. Absolutely, you should never be creative if you are prosecuting. That is an absolute, that's a recipe for total disaster. You should be conservative, very conservative. You should follow precedent and follow the law. That's what you're there.

Paul. Let's talk about the fiscal side and the policies, the economic policies of the administration. Now, in Europe, they're widely praised. In Britain, people come and tell us, why don't we do the same here? If Biden can, you know, expand the economy in the way that he is, we have this enormously dynamic economy in the United States, whereas our economy is to stand still. What we need to do is put the break on the fiscal accelerator and all will be well. And this is Keynesianism. Is it even Keynesianism? I think Keynes would not agree with that, by the way. I think you would look at this and turn white with horror.

Keynes said you should stimulate the economy in a recession, not when it's already doing well. That would lead to overheating, actually. Well, that's exactly right. And that's exactly what happened is that's why inflation came. So I think Keynes would have been very much against it. No, biodynamics is a policy of pumping, trillions of dollars of stimulus into a growing economy. It's an experiment that's ever been

tried before. I mean, the Keynesians believed, again, that you would use government spending as a stabilizer so that when the economy is doing poorly, government spends maybe on welfare, things like that to help balance things out. When the economy is doing well, you can cut back. Of course, the cutbacks never happened. That's just part of the political process. So government spending ends up being a one-way ratchet. But in any event, that was sort of the traditional In view, I think what's new about biomics is, again, we had a recovery in the first quarter of 2021 when Biden took office. His first act was to pass that $2 trillion dollar COVID relief bill, the so-called American Rescue Plan, even though COVID was completely winding down. And that was

passed along straight party lines. And Larry Summers, again, he warned that this could lead to inflation. Inflation was really low. It was only 2%. He said that this could lead to inflation. And lo and behold, the inflation came. It was 5% that summer. And then it grew to the 9% official number by the next year. And then that caused the Fed to jack up interest rates from zero to five and a half percent in one year in the fastest rate tightening cycle we've ever had. And that's caused a whole bunch of whipsawing effects in the banking system. And it's made people feel a lot worse off because their cost of borings gone up.

So if you want to buy a house, you can't do that anymore. if you want to buy a car and have a car payment, that's more expensive, and so on. So I think one of the reasons why the American people don't feel like the economy is that great, even though the unemployment numbers are very low and the GDP growth numbers are still good. And the stock markets at an all-time high is because there's some sense in which this whole thing's been artificially juiced. And it's unsustainable. I mean, we can't continue to run $2 trillion deficit every year in peacetime.

I guess that's debatable now, but without us being directly an award, let's put it that way, without us being in a recession. And we're up to, what, $34, $35 trillion in debt. And our interest expenses now over a trillion a year. Everyone knows this isn't sustainable. And yet there's no effort made to combat it. In fact, the latest budget would increase spending by 18%. So, again, you just have this feeling that things are just careening.

Do you feel as an entrepreneur that this is distorting the economy, that there's a lot of malinvestment going on? Because that's also my own feeling. Of course, I'm looking at this from a distance. I'm in London. But how does it feel to you? Because again, when there's this kind of enormous fiscal acceleration, in my experience, that is what tends to happen. Money flows around. It's not going where it should be going.

In fact, it creates all kinds of distortions and imbalances, which actually weaken the economy rather than strengthen it. Yeah, and that's what happened, I think, in 2020 and 2021, especially 2021. We had an asset super bubble, and a lot of money flowed into, let's call it, risk assets. So we saw tons of money pouring into Silicon Valley from crossover investors, you know, public hedge funds, non-traditional Silicon Valley investors. Sometimes they're dismissively called tourist investors here because they tend to come and go and

most of them have now left. And then, of course, there was just a lot of very speculative investment. And that was driven, I think, by ZERP, you know, the zero interest rate policy combined with this kind of air dropping of all this stimulus related to COVID. I think that now that has somewhat subsided because interest rates are. so high. So if you can get a five and a half percent return, risk-free, the hurdle rate on investment really goes up. So the new money that's pouring in now, I think, has slowed down. So the interest rates have combated that, but at a cost, which is just that the ordinary

American's borrowing cost has now gone way up. So again, we're being whipsawed here from, you know, a interest rate policy and a fiscal policy that was way too loose, then it got very tight. Neither one was ideal. It would have been better if we had just kind of pursued a more normal strategy. But Alexander, just to go back to your point about why doesn't Britain try it? I mean, the U.S. has tremendous room to pursue a policy like this because it's the world's reserve currency. And so it can get away with things that other countries can't.

And, you know, there's a lot of ruin. What was the Adam Smith line? There's a lot of ruin in a nation. There's a lot of ruin in a reserve currency. The U.S. can just keep doing this until we can't. And no one knows where that point is. No one knows where it's going to break. But so I don't think it would work for other countries.

And I don't even think it's going to work for the U.S. long term. But no one knows exactly where the breaking point is. I think you're muted. I am. Sorry. It does seem to me, as if, as I said, we have a fiscal situation, which exactly as you said, the government is losing control. You cannot run budgets like this indefinitely, and you cannot allow a situation like the one we have on the border to continue indefinitely. That is an absolute loss of control.

One of the functions of governments is to control borders. The government doesn't control the border. what sort of a government is it at the end of the day? I mean, that is one of the key functions of what a government is supposed to be. Yeah, absolutely. And, you know, I say this as an immigrant. I moved to America with my family when I was five years old. I became a citizen when I was 10.

Elon, similar, came later, you know, was an immigrant. This has nothing to do with legal immigration. This is basically uncontrolled mass migration being allowed in the United States. We just don't know who these people are. Many of them are destitute. They put a huge burden on our social services. And they pose a national security threat and potentially a crime threat. And virtually every week now, there's some new horror story about an American citizen who has been killed by, you know, an illegal immigrant. And I mean, it's anecdotal, but none of these things should be happening. And it is a core government

responsibility and you have to wonder why the administration is allowing this. What they claim is they need new legislative authority in order to take action on the problem. And I just don't see how that's credible. I mean, Trump was able to stop this or at least have one-tenth the amount. I mean, I think under Trump, there are about 400,000 encounters of these so-called encounters every year. Now we're up to close to something like 4 million under Biden. And of course, that's just the ones that they know about.

those are the people they intercept. So the real number is probably much higher than that. In any event, Trump, through executive orders, was able to take action on this problem. On Biden's first day in office, he repealed all those executive orders. And, you know, it's so dysfunctional now that you have to wonder, why are they doing this? And, you know, there's a lot of people speculate that, you know, they're trying to import future voters for the Democratic Party. I think even if that's true, it would be, it would be crazy because this could cost them the election. So you would think that if they cared about the election, they would just stop it at least for now.

And then maybe they returned to this policy in the second term. But I think they're so locked in on this policy. I think that they came in wanting to undo everything Trump did, no matter whether it was right or wrong. And they repealed all of his executive orders. And I think that, I think the reason they can't do anything now is because if they were to reinstate the executive orders need to fix the problem, people had noticed that Trump was right. And so I think this creates

this like lock-in where, you know, they have to just, I guess, try and fudge their way through this problem until the election. I should say, I too, I'm an immigrant. I'm an immigrant to Britain. I came here when I was seven. And of course, I went through a legal process. All of us support legal immigration. Illegal immigration is something completely different because exactly as you said, by definition, it is not something you control. And again, I find some of the things that are happening in the United States now. I mean, not only is illegal immigration allowed, but if I'm hearing things correctly, people who are coming into the United States illegally are acquiring positions, which one is surprised that they can possibly be acquiring.

They're being recruited into the military, for example, if this is correct, and police services. I even heard a story. I don't know whether this is true, that one of them has been appointed to an electoral commission somewhere. I don't know whether this is true, by the way. Perhaps you've heard of this. But, I mean, these are astonishing things, and it doesn't just erode the difference between legal and illegal and immigration, which is already a serious thing. But of course, it also ultimately devalues the concept of citizenship, which is what legal immigration is supposed to lead to if you want to immigrate into a country in a lawful way. Yeah, I mean, I completely agree.

And we know this is a deliberate policy because the migrants are being ushered in. All they have to do is say a secret word or magical word, asylum. that the cartels or whoever's ushering them and tells them to. And they're given a ticket to basically appear in court in three years, four years, five years, whatever. And they're just allowed into the country. And then there's buses or even plane flights that will take them all around the country. And there was a story in New York about how they're being given debit cards and, you know, with preloaded cash amounts on it and phones and all sorts of things.

So, you know, this is a deliberate policy. It's just I don't understand how the administration can defend it. It just seems completely inoffensible to me. Let's go to one of the other topics you mentioned, which is Gaza. You mentioned how things are out of control and how incoherent they are. Well, how much more incoherent can you get than this? You are in the Security Council. You allow a ceasefire resolution to pass.

you say that, you know, well, you're abstaining on it, but you know, you're letting it pass. Then the next day you walk it back, you then pretend that this resolution isn't legally binding, which by the way, it is. You say that, you know, you're angry with Prime Minister Netanyahu. You even suggest that you want him to step down. You get one of your senators, Chuck Schumer, to say that he should step down. Something, by the way, I'm concerned about. I mean, I don't personally agree with Prime Minister Netanyahu,

but I don't think it's America's job to tell him, to tell Israel who should be its prime minister. But that's my perhaps unfashionable view. But anyway, you do all of these things, and at the same time you continue to provide arms to Israel and support Israel in whatever it is that it's doing. Again, it seems very incoherent, and I can say definitely, because we are at the Iran in contact with people from that, region. It is eroding support in the region for the United States, and it is isolating Israel. It is

achieving the opposite of whatever policy, whatever the policy is supposed to be achieving, which presumably is to strengthen the positions of the United States and increase the security of Israel. Or am I getting this wrong in some way? No, I agree with you. I think that Israel's policy has completely backfired. I mean, I basically tweeted that and got ratioed for it as soon as the bombing of Gaza began. And let me preface this by saying that I'm a supporter of Israel in the sense that I believe that Israel has a right to exist and I want to see it survive and thrive. You know, I feel like I'm a moderate on this question. I mean, I think ultimately the right solution here would have been some sort of two-state solution, you know, ideally done 20 years ago.

But as soon as this bombing began, I said that what Hamas did was an atrocity, was an unconscionable, Israel's right to defend itself. Obviously, it's going to want to take action against Hamas. And yet bombing a civilian population in Gaza that really can't go anywhere is obviously going to backfire horribly. And you see that Israel is losing the support of virtually the entire world. And I think within the U.S., Israel is really losing. the support of young people. I think that there's still, I think there's a huge generation gap

on this issue. I just don't see how this is good for Israel long term. I don't see how this is in its interest, as well as the fact that it's creating a humanitarian catastrophe. And I feel sorry for the Palestinian people as well. And I think that Biden could have played a much more constructive role here. You know, I think the Israeli mentality was summed up by their fame general Moshe, Diane, who said that Israel must be like a mad dog too dangerous to be touched. That's sort of the Israeli mentality is that they're surrounded on all sides by enemies. And so they must essentially overreact in order to create deterrence. I think this is sort of the Israeli mindset.

And so I think American presidents understanding this have always played a role in restraining Israel and making sure they didn't go too far. Eisenhower made sure that the Israelis didn't go too far at Suez in 1950. Kitsinger and Nixon made sure that the Israelis didn't go too far in 1973. Reagan called up in Aachen Began in 1982 and told him to stop bombing Lebanon. He was creating a Holocaust. So American presidents have sort of understood that the American role here while being a friend to Israel is also to make sure they don't go too far and do something that's not in their own interest, never mind the interest of the United States. And I think Biden just didn't understand that, kind of missed that opportunity, went to Israel early, gave Biden, or sorry, gave Netanyahu the bear hug, and gave him carte launch effectively.

And now he's behind the eight ball trying to rein in Netanyahu. And this is just entirely too late. And, you know, he needed to figure out what the American strategy was, what the American position was and what American red lines were with respect to Israel's invasion of Gaza at the very. very beginning and then as opposed to reacting in the face of this sort of steady cascade of atrocities. I completely agree. I mean, I would say that one of the fundamental strategic errors or rather acts of strategic ignorance that the administration made at the beginning was that they didn't understand one very simple fact, which is that Arab governments before 7th October disliked Hamas. they are all already deeply hostile to it.

The Saudis don't like them. The other Gulf states don't like them, except for Qatar, which has particular reasons to support them. Egypt and Jordan loathe them. If they worked with the Arab states, perhaps if they'd sought with the Arab states, resolutions against Hamas from the Security Council, the UN Security Council, right at the outset,

they would have got them. They would have had action against Hamas leaders under Chapter 7. They would have had actions against Hamas' funding. They could have had demands that these people be referred to the international criminal court. Lots of things could have been done then.

And it could have been done with the support of the Arab countries and it could have accelerated the process of diplomatic recognition for Israel by countries like Saudi Arabia. And this pressure, this is what I believe cumulatively could have succeeded. It would ultimately have broken Hamas because Hamas has to function within an Arab world, which doesn't like it, but now obviously supports it. You isolate it in that kind of way. it would have broken. And Israel's position could have been made much stronger because Arab leaders,

Arab countries were sympathetic to Israel, as most of the world was on the 7th of October. All that sympathy has been thrown away. It has been one of the most extraordinary failures in statesmanship that I have ever seen. And you mentioned various previous. US presidents and how much more intelligently they handled this situation. And again, this administration, far from handling this situation at all, as far as I could see, they gave out blank, it gave Netanyahu a blank check, which is something you should never do. Yeah, I mean, so I agree completely. And I heard you make this case at the very beginning in the wake of October 7th about the diplomatic course that Israel could have pursued. They could have restored security. I mean,

they could have reinstated or fixed the wall around Gaza. They could have stopped the tunnels coming out of Gaza and then pursued this diplomatic strategy. I think it would have taken incredible restraint and forbearance on the part of, you know, the Israeli public and politicians. Maybe that level of restraint was unrealistic. But I agree with you that it would have been better for them because what is the end result of the current strategy? It's a war with no end in sight. It looks like a quagmire. The Palestinian population has been completely radicalized. I don't see how this is going to create fewer terrorists. And then, of course, the whole Middle East now, not to mention the world has really turned against Israel. And I think this is going to ensure support for Hamas,

for years and years to come. So it just feels like this policy is backfired. And I think the Israeli point of view on this is, well, we're just gonna destroy Hamas, but how? I mean, there was an article just in the Washington Post this morning where as they're bombing Rafa, the Hamas pop back up in the north.

So they're playing whack-a-mole now. You know, how are they actually going to destroy all of Hamas. It just doesn't, I mean, they completely blend in with the population. So unless you're willing to destroy the, kill the entire civilian population, I don't, I mean, I don't think Israel would, hopefully we're not talking about that. So, although I think a lot of people do believe that, you know, there is a genocide going on. But I, but in any event, the point is just that, uh, they're pursuing this objective that seems militarily unattainable.

and in the process they're creating a much worse situation. So, I mean, look, I think this is mostly an Israeli problem, but the problem is that, you know, as I've heard Meersheimer say on your program, we're joined at the hip, and America is. And so it becomes our problem as well. And, yeah, at this point, I don't know what the way out of it is. I agree. I don't know what the way out of it is now.

I think we have to work through it and hope for the best. Well, hope for the best on that even bigger crisis. I think it was in the Washington Post that they were now admitting that a debacle on, you know, well, actually much worse than Afghanistan is now looming. A war in Ukraine, which has gone horribly wrong at almost every level. And one of the things, again, that I don't understand about that war, I have been asking various people who were experts on, things about the war, about Ukraine, about Russia, about Russian economy, about military affairs.

People who've been to Russian factories have some knowledge of how Russia works. They all tell me one and the same thing. None of them have been consulted. None of them have been spoken to. I don't mean the expert community in Washington, the Fiona Hills and the Michael McFalls and people like that. I mean the real ones, the real experts who've actually done work in Russia, who worked on the oil fields and in the factories, who have had contacts with the military. I met an ex-Py who actually went to Ukraine for the British, met lots of people there in the military, actually got befriended by the military, a very strange story. But I mean, none of them were consulted, and a whole set of decisions were made. And, well, where is it all

leading. Well, perhaps we said many times, you talk a lot about Ukraine. David, maybe you can tell us your views about the overall situation in Ukraine. Well, I think my views are similar to yours, and I've learned a lot from your podcasts over the past year. Just by the way, I think I discovered your podcast as the Battle of Bachmot was going on. I think it was about a year ago, and it hadn't concluded yet, but I remember very clearly that you guys were describing the situation as a Caldron, where the Ukrainians were continuing to pour in more troops and they were getting destroyed and the Russians were very happy with the situation. And then in the mainstream media and, you know, their think tanks like ISW were describing

the situation as the as a culmination of the Russian attack. The Russian attack was culminating. It was Caldron versus culmination. And I remember thinking that, wow, like what these guys are saying is so 180 degree different than everything else I'm hearing. that if they end up being right about this, then I'll know that they're legit, and they've figured this thing out.

And that is exactly what happened. And then, of course, we had the counteroffensive where you guys reported right from the beginning that the thing was a debacle. We all should have, as soon as the tanks ran into minefields, and they had no solution for that, we should have known.

But it went on for months and months and months, and you guys accurately reported it. So in any event, you know, being an investor, I look at track record, you know, like whose track record is good. No one seems to do this. They never asked for McFalls, Well, did the things he predicted come true?

No, he just moves on to the next fantasy or hoax or whatever. In any event, that's how I became acquainted with your shows. And in any event, I've learned a lot. I mean, I think the situation now is that everything that Biden claimed about this war has not only not come true. It's come true in reverse. He said that he would crush the Russian economy. The Russian economy is doing fine, is actually outperforming the G7.

It's the European economies that are in recession. It's our allies who've been crushed. He said that, or it was his secretary of defense, Austin said, that we would weaken the Russian military. In fact, the Russian military has become stronger. They've ramped up their massive industrial production. They're making more of everything, as you've reported, drones, planes, bombs, artillery shells, and their military is much bigger. They've got huge numbers of people volunteering. It's not conscription.

The Russian people seem to be behind this war and they're volunteering and then they're getting proper training. They're not sent to the front lines right away. And they're getting battle tested and battle hardened, especially against Western weapons. So the Russian military has only gotten stronger and it's our own American and NATO stockpiles that have been emptied out. So we're the ones who've been weakened by this. Then you've got diplomatic.

Biden said that this war would isolate Putin. In fact, Putin and the Russians, the rest of the world doesn't seem to be. buying into this. Putin just did a trip to the Middle East where he was greeted like a conquering hero by MBZ and MBS and UAE and Saudi Arabia. The Indians, the Brazilians, it's not just quote authoritarian countries that have not accepted our view of the war. It's also democracies like, you know, India and Brazil and other countries. So the rest of the world has not necessarily gone along with us on this. And in fact, you mentioned Fiona Hill. she, despite being a massive Russia hawk, she said that the war was basically backfiring,

that it was causing the rest of the world to resist American leadership. She declared Pax Americana was over. So, you know, Biden thought that he would strengthen the West. He was constantly talking about unity, resolve leadership. In fact, even liberal interventionists, like Fiona Hill or like Joseph Burrell, they're not talking about the end of Pax Americana. So this thing has backfire massively. And then, of course, you've got the humanitarian dimension of this,

where Biden said that he would ease the suffering of the Ukrainian people through this policy. Instead, it looks like the country is facing demographic collapse with all the people who've left, over 10 million, all the women and children, the men who can afford to bribe their way out of the country have left. And, of course, you know, at least half a million casualties. And then, you know, you see all these videos of people being rounded up off the streets at gunpoint in order to be conscripted. I mean, they've run out of volunteers. They don't want to fight anymore. At least the majority of people don't.

And this is what American appropriations will be funding, is if we appropriate another 60 billion or 20 billion or whatever, it's going to be used to round up hundreds of thousands of young Ukrainians who are hiding in their homes. who do not want to fight, who would bribe their way out of the country if they had money, but they're too poor to do so. And these people will be rounded up at gunpoint to fight a doomed war. I think this is one of the worst things the United States has ever done. Why doesn't the administration change policy? This is failing disastrously. I think even they understand it at some level. People in Europe do. I mean, you know, this is, you know, the art of statesmanship is, you know, if you see something going wrong and catastrophically wrong like this is,

well, then you change your policy, perhaps you contact the other side, you come to some kind of an agreement. Putin is the kind of ban who in the past has shown a certain willingness to engage in diplomacy. He said, I mean, he's very critical of himself now. It's going to make it very difficult. But anyway, that's his track record. He always still says he's up for negotiations, he's by all of that.

Why did you do it? Why did they try? because they controlled the narrative. There's no reason for them to admit that they've got an egg all over their face. I mean, this administration, they don't only have egg on their face.

I mean, they basically went to the buffet line, you know, with the trays of scrambled eggs and stuck their head all the way in it. They've got, I mean, it is, it's a really extreme case, but they don't have to admit it

because, again, they control the narrative. And so, who says that Ukraine is losing the war? I mean, they've maintained that they were winning. They would evict the Russians in the counteroffensive. Oh, the counteroffensive didn't work.

Well, it's a stalemate. Don't worry. They're not losing. Oh, wait, it's not a stalemate. They're losing territory. Well, this new strategy is hold and build. I mean, there's always some new answer. And, I mean, the reality is that, as with any foreign policy issue, the American people,

you know, it's not first and foremost on their minds if Americans are not fighting. and so the administration just has wide latitude to pursue the policy that they want. I think people are, at least in the Republican Party, have woken up to the risk of this war and the cost of it. And I think the vast majority of Republicans have no interest in funding another $60 billion. But it's become a highly partisan issue now. And I think Democrats are even more invested in it, if possible, because it's an electioneer issue. And of course, the establishment, GOP, which is filled with Warhawks, is willing to continue funding it and the mainstream media will spin the best narrative about it. And so there's

no reason really, there's no price for the administration in, in, that they're paying right now, that they need to change course and acknowledge the failure. So they're going to keep going with the policy until they can, until events force them not to, until they can't continue with it. And so I think that this policy will continue until Ukraine collapses, basically. One last comment and then I'm done, which is this briefly that it all ties in together because you've explained, you mentioned at the beginning how the administration is able to control the narrative. The media basically covers for it, whatever they do, be it the fiscal policy, the collapse of the situation in the border, all of those things. and of course Ukraine and of course the Middle East, the lawfare as well, they're able to do all of these things because they're protected

because they are immune from criticism because of them. And I'm going to suggest that's also why they're going after Elon Musk at the end of the day because he's trying to open up Twitter to X, or I should say, sorry, not Twitter, X, he's trying to open up X so that there can actually be discussion as, of course, was the is the American principle, the idea of open debate where information is properly exchanged, where people are properly informed

about what is happening, so that there is an informed citizenry, I think that's the language of the First Amendment, or all the rules, able to make decisions. And of course, if you don't have information, you can't make proper decisions. So by preventing criticism through applying this sort of media control,

they're ensuring that decisions which they make, which are bad, get perpetuated. That's not so much a question. It's just a... No, I think you're right. It seems like, you know, this is not democracy. I mean, you're right. Democracy requires a well-educated population, but if the information that we're getting is somehow tainted,

then it undermines the ability of the population to make informed decisions. And I was there at Twitter, you're now X, when the Twitter files were opened up. And what did we learn? We learned that the FBI had 80 agents reviewing posts on Twitter to be taken down, that they were meeting with the trust and safety team, basically the censorship team, at Twitter on a weekly basis. and that the FBI was acting as the belly button. That was the word of the FBI office chief.

I think his name was Elvis Chan. The FBI was acting as the belly button, the central conduit for the entire intelligence community. I mean, this was, I think, an unprecedented set of revelations about how the government was interfering in speech in, I mean, an utterly unprecedented way. And yet, the mainstream media just refused to cover it. They kept calling it a nothing burger. And then when the Republicans managed to do a hearing about it on Capitol Hill, they somehow turned it into a story about, I think, a Twitter spat that Trump had with Chrissy Teigen or something.

So, you know, we can't, the whole thing was sort of covered up. But, you know, we learn about this interaction. We also learned that the whole Hamilton 68 dashboard, which was used as a basis for thousands of stories over the last several years, claiming that the Russians were influencing our public debate, it was all a total hoax. It was all a total and complete fraud. Have any of those thousands of stories been retracted,

not to my knowledge? In any event, you know, I agree with you. I think this is the heart of why Elon's become persona non grata is that he opened up extra free speech. And we learned through the Twitter files that it wasn't just happening at Twitter. that these government agencies were coordinating with all the big tech companies. And so they were in the process of asserting total information control.

There was a momentum to this. Remember, it wasn't just about hate speech. I mean, during COVID, they censored true medical opinions like Jay Botacharya about COVID, about where the virus came from, about even the facts like the case fatality rate or infection fatality rate about the efficacy of lockdowns, certainly about the efficacy of vaccines. All these topics were prohibited. And there was a momentum to the censorship where it felt like every month, a new category of thought and opinion was being walled off and you couldn't express a dissenting opinion.

You could only reaffirm the official narrative. And I think that that galloping censorship would have continued into many more categories. I really shudder to think about what would happen with this war in Ukraine if Elon hadn't bought Twitter, would we even be able to talk about the things that we're talking about today and have them be disseminated? I doubt it. So I think that, you know, Elon was sort of, it was definitely the thing they didn't plan on to have this. It was a fluke. I mean, you had this billionaire, the world's richest man, decided to pull an intervention because as an immigrant to American who became a citizen believes in free speech so much that he was willing to risk and lose tens of

billions of dollars to restore free speech in America. I mean, that definitely was not on the regime's bingo card. And that is what has made him, you know, an enemy. And he's being targeted. And this is why I think that, you know, I hope that we have a change in an administration in November, because I think that this will continue if they're allowed to get away with it. I entirely agree. I should say it also means, shows that Donald Musk is a much true of American than most of his critics are than his critics are. As, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as,

as, as, as, people are, you know, they appreciate the freedoms that we have here. Exactly. David Sacks, this has, uh, been a wonderful program for me. I'm going to hand over to Alex, I, I, I, I have finished. Thank you for your clear and, uh, clear and straightforward answers to my questions. David, we have some questions for you.

Okay. But before we get to those questions, if you have time to answer a few questions. Yeah. I'm good. This is. We're, I mean. Fantastic. Fantastic.

What question we have gotten a lot over the past a week is TikTok. Oh, yeah. Talk about the legislation for TikTok. And it's much more than just TikTok. Right. Okay, well, let me first describe what the bill does because I read it very carefully. And even proponents of the bill have acknowledged that I understand it. So it's not just a TikTok ban.

Yes, it would target TikTok and bite dance and force bite dance to divest ownership of TikTok within six months or the app would be banned completely. So it does that. But in addition to that, it bans or prohibits any of what they call foreign adversary controlled applications, or it's called Afaka for short, from operating in the United States. And Afaka, again, a foreign adversary controlled application, is not just an app. And it's not just a foreign owned company. It can be any American-owned website or application that is in the, let's call it, content-sharing space that has a million monthly active users.

So it applies to all of those. So every social network certainly would be covered under this. And when you look under the language, which is buried in the definitions of what it means to be controlled by a foreign adversary, it says that you're subject to the direction or control of basically a person. in a foreign adversary or a group of investors. Oops. How do we get rid of the, do you guys see the thumb? There goes, okay, good.

You're subject to the direction of a person in one of these foreign adversary countries. So this is where my alarm bill start going off, is what is subject to the direction of me? Now, I know that proponents of the bill say this is well understood, legal language, like look at securities, laws, precedents, they define it. It's actually a narrow definition. I'm like, oh, really? Well, did Fawney Willis care about the definition of RICO when she brought her lawsuit? Did Alvin Brad

care about the definition of a misdemeanor and statute of limitations when he brought his 43 felonies? Did I could go on. I mean, did Jack Smith care about hundreds of law, years of fraud precedent when he invented his novel crime? No, of course not. We live in an age of weaponization. and any ambiguity or discretion that you create in these laws will absolutely be used by a future creative attorney general, just like the Patriot Act was weaponized against the American people. This will be too. It's pretty obvious, I think, to see where this leads. Would a future attorney general, maybe in a second Biden administration, somebody tougher, someone who Biden likes better than Merrick Garland, maybe Jack Smith, could he say that Elon is subject to the direction of the Chinese Communist Party because he has a factory in Shanghai

and therefore they have leverage over him and therefore he must divest ownership of Twitter? Why couldn't they make that case? Why wouldn't it be extremely damaging for him just to be in for the just department just to open that investigation and harass him and vex him with costly litigation, which this bill would now create? And of course, they could do this to others. I mean, Trump owns true social. On virtually a daily basis, he is accused of being an agent of Vladimir Putin. That makes him subject to the direction of a foreign adversary. So why can't they force him to divest ownership of true social? And if you won't do that, will it just ban it. I mean, this is what we're talking about here. This would create the powers to do that. So I would say that at a minimum, this legislation needs to

to remove all the wiggle room around this language, they should not be covering American-owned websites and applications. And really, quite frankly, this whole issue should be dealt with in a trade bill, not in some sort of, you know, in terms of a reciprocal trade agreement between the U.S. and China, that would be the way to deal with this. It should not be dealt with in legislation that, again, could target American companies. Right. Yeah. Telegram. They could go out to telegram. What do you say, David, to the argument that people make who are for this legislation, the few people that are for this legislation who say, well, China blocks our social networks and our apps.

Well, yeah, that's a reciprocity argument. So I think that if you want to make trade reciprocal between the U.S. and China, then like I said, let's do it in a trade bill. And we can say, okay, if China won't open its markets to our social networks, we don't need to open our markets to their social networks. And at least then the blast area, the blast radius of this legislation will be tightly controlled. That would be the way to deal with reciprocity. But look, I think that reciprocity is good, but I don't know that I would do it for its own sake.

I mean, I think that America, we have a more open, we have a First Amendment. We have a more open marketplace of ideas here. and China doesn't and and the same, you know, China Hawks would say that's why we're morally superior to China. So, you know, whether you believe that or not, the point is just that we don't have to have reciprocity in every aspect. But if we do, then do it as a trade bill. Great.

All right. Let's get to some questions. Joanna says, David, thoughts on the stock market over the next year, not financial advice. Not financial advice, but, well, if you were to have any thoughts on the stock market, what would you say? You know, this is so hard to predict. I mean, I've predicted 10 of the last three recessions. So, you know, I thought we'd already be in a recession by now, and I've been proven wrong. You know, look, I think that right now, the stock market is driven by the performance of companies, which seems to be pretty good right now, and then it's driven by interest rate policy.

And right now, I think it's the market is pricing in three rate cuts this year with 70% probability. So, you know, if the Fed does that, then things will stay on track, at least with respect to rate expectations. And if inflation for some reason is higher and the Fed doesn't feel like it can do that, then there could be an adjustment. So that would be like one framework to look at it. I don't want to predict which way it's actually going to go. Right. Sparky says, poor border security in the U.S. is still mainly due. Keep wages down. Correction. Keep labor costs in general, not just wages. Your thoughts? I think that is one motivation. And the economic motivation to have cheap labor in the U.S.

So this actually goes back all the way to the Wall Street Journal in the 1980s. under I'm going way back here, but under Bob Bartley, famed sort of neocon editor-in-chief of the Wall Street Journal, it was a kind of neocon view that you would have open trade, open borders, open movement of labor and capital. And in fact, the Wall Street Journal at one point suggested that we should have a constitutional amendment saying that a border should be open. And I think there was a huge economic motivation to that. I think that it was kind of a view that the world is flat type idea. And I think that what we've discovered over the last few decades is obviously the world doesn't work like that.

It's just not that simple. And I actually don't think that's the main rationale for it anymore. I actually think that, I mean, I'm not sure there is a, I don't think there is a good policy reason for it, But I think that Democrats at various times have acknowledged that mass migration benefits them. So, you know, that seems like a stronger motivation at this point, but I don't know exactly. I think perhaps it's not necessary to get into the motivations of the people who are pursuing this policy. It's just enough to say that the policy doesn't make sense. Yeah.

Joe Public says mass migration into Western countries are all part of the UN Agenda 2030 and the NWO in order. to dilute national identity. What do you think about that argument to dilute national identity? Yeah, I think the indigenous peoples of Europe are up in arms about this unlimited mass migration. It does change the culture of their country. I mean, if you're going to be a democracy, you have to care about the population of your country.

Because if the majority changes to people with radically different views or views, you know, or values or attitudes, and obviously it has a huge impact on the way the country's governed. So yeah, look, I think this sort of globalist idea of unrestricted immigration and open borders, it just feels anachronistic to me. And the people have spoken, I think throughout the West, I think this is one of the major reasons

why populists are on the rise, is this policy does not benefit the people currently living in these countries. By the way, this is true. Even in the U.S., if you look at Hispanic voters in the U.S., there's been a pretty decent movement of Hispanic voters into the Republican Party. They do not favor these open border policies either. So, you know, if you're a legal resident of one of these countries, it does not benefit

you to have this unrestricted mass migration. And it doesn't really matter what race you are. This is not a racial thing. A lot of questions. Let's do. let me see let's do two two or three more two more uh commandal crossfire says russia has as much stem graduates as the u.s despite half the population if democracy depends on on education and inform public which one is a democracy which one is democratic sorry which one is democratic is the question

well i think we're kind of mixing up a couple of concepts there right so um there's no question Russia has an educated population. It's always been good at math, chess, things like that, a lot of engineers. Russia's good at building things. As you guys have talked about in your show, it's not just a gas station with nukes. That's kind of an antiquated view. The Russians have proved that they have a modern economy that's capable of producing a lot of things. And now, I think with respect to the U.S., where the U.S. really has an advantage, I think, is

is in startup innovation. The U.S. is very, I mean, this is my world. And the U.S. is very good at swarming a new technology platform in a completely decentralized way. So you have, for example, with AI, you know, Open AI launches this chat GPT product in, was it, November of 2022. And in the last, call it, year and a half, there's been an absolute explosion. of AI startups. And that's not because there was any central directive to make that happen. It's because the talent, the founders, the VCs who write the checks all kind of gravitate towards this area.

And then they run hundreds or thousands of experiments and most of them fail, but a few of them pay off in a huge way. And and this is I think this is the heart of what has made the American economy dynamic. I'm still very bullish about that part of the American economy. Let's call it the micro economy. I've got all these concerns about the macro economy, or unsustainable fiscal picture of the deficits in the debt. And I just don't know how those two things reconcile each other. I mean, I go back and forth on this about whether I should be optimistic or pessimistic.

I'm pessimistic about the macro and optimistic about the micros. So, yeah. All right. One more. One more, David. from Sparky. David, what do you think of the 1996 Telecom Act? It only allowed news media consolidation. It not only allowed news media consolidation. It removed logistical barriers between government and telecoms allowing limitless electronic surveillance.

You know, I didn't know that. So that's just not, sorry, I'm just not deep on that topic. I'm not sure what the answer is. Okay. And why can't we? have from tn t why can't we have david sacks as president you want to answer that or i wasn't i wasn't born in the united states so it's not even a fantasy of mine uh but i i have no interest in in doing uh doing politics that way but uh i mean i do support candidates who i like um but that's the extent of it but no i even if i was delusional and narcissistic enough to even entertain that idea i would not be eligible. So it's just not even something that's a fantasy. Sparky says all all the money the US spends trying to start a war with China could be spent working on the regulation and enforcement

of free and fair trade. Yeah, that's that's a that's a longer conversation. I think it'll be interesting by the way if you got meersheimer and Jeffrey Sachs to debate that topic on your show because they agree completely on Ukraine but then they have a difference on China and I think it's very interesting. Yeah, that would be interesting. They're a good friends, by the way. Yeah. Despite their disagreements.

See, HUD says, thanks for all the info. It's hard to find truth and sense these days. Cheers, Chaps. Thank you for that. David Sachs, thank you for joining us. We've gone an hour, five minutes. We really appreciate your time. You can find and follow David on Twitter X.

I have the link in the description box down below, and it will be added as a pain to comments. Well, thanks to you guys for all the work that you do. I know that you work very hard. I mean, you guys put out content every day. I don't think you miss. And so, and, you know, I know you have to do a lot of research before you do those shows.

So, you know, I can tell that you guys work really hard. I really appreciate what you do it. I'm a fan of your podcast. So you know, have the great work. Thank you very much, David, for those words and for coming on our show. Absolutely. Anytime. Thank you very much, David.

All right. Thank you, guys. Wow, great show. It was a very great show. He is very clear. You can see that he's a business, why he's a successful businessman. Because his mind is so clear and very, very direct.

Yeah. Yep. There's not, we have some, we have some questions to answer, but going off of what you said, yeah, I think the, I think the reason he's able to analyze the geopolitical.

I mean, he said it during the live stream. The reason he's able to correctly analyze the geopolitical is because he takes the approach of analyzing businesses and startups. Exactly. Exactly. Yeah. So let's just get through whatever questions and comments we have because we do have some more questions and comments and we will wrap it up for this evening.

For me, it's evening time. So let's see, Part two, thank you for joining the direct community. Debt dealer. 1341 says, is Poland going to war with Russia on Easter Sunday? No. They are already sending their troops there. There's reports that one of their generals has just been killed in Chasseh. I think they're going to go to war.

Sparky says, Dina's by Israel. Elsa says the Biden administration said that the Krokus attack, it was ISIS, period. Isn't that proof enough? It's conclusive. Conclusive proof. What more information do you need? Pucks McGee says, has Russia reported Ukraine war crimes to the UN, ICC? No, they're not part of the ICC.

They don't want to have anything to do with the ICC. So which, remember, is indicting Putin and is coming after other Russians and all of that. So the Russians are not going to have any dealings with the ICC. Not forever, I think. Sir Muggs game says, Tokerville, the greatest of America. lies in her ability to repair her faults. Can she still repair her faults, or is that a bridge too far? Well, this is the great question. This is the great unanswered question. I don't know. I used to be optimistic. I'm less optimistic now, but we'll see.

Yeah. Sparky says, is Garland Nixon working with Keybridge recovery? He's retired Maryland police, was Chesapeake Bay hovercraft pilots, and his father was a local longshoreman. Haven't seen Garland since the collapse. Oh. I'm sure Garland's fine. I'm sure he's okay. Yes, I think I have seen him, actually. Yeah.

Just saying. Yeah. He should be on a show soon as well, by the way. Commander Crossfire says, Putin said last month that Russia was one step away from cancer vaccines. And now the head of the medical biology agency, Vasili Lazarev, said the main remaining obstacles are regulatory and budgetary. Have you been following this story?

I saw the comment from Putin. I'll just wait and see what comes because this does seem a bit way out to me, to be honest. Putin has been working very hard and very intensely to build up Russia's pharmaceutical industry. The old Soviet pharmaceutical industry completely collapsed. They're importing all their medicines from the West, and he's really wanted to build it up. they're now covered for about half of the medicines that they have. But I think he's perhaps getting a bit overexcited and is anticipating successful products that we just don't know about yet.

And I hope that there's some big mistake, but anyway, we'll see. Yeah. Nikos says everything that's wrong today, whether it's Marxist openness in our culture or global wars, can be summed up in two words, arrogance and narcissism. Yeah. And Nikos, a follow up to that super chat, Nico says, the West today doesn't have democracy. Our ancestors in Athens invented.

What we have is oligarchy, just like Sparta. They are laughing now saying we won. Well, I think that's probably true, actually. I mean, yeah, I think there's a strong point being made there, actually. We do have oligarchy. And that inevitably follows when free debate is restricted, because if you know anything at all about Athenian democracy, its most important principle was that there'd be completely open discussion.

Yeah. One second, Alexander. Tish M. says, I'll say it again. Julian is my litmus test, and let's not forget that both parties of the U.S. regime have their boot prints all over him, aside. Indeed. Indeed, absolutely. I mean, I'm sure you all know that there's been a legal decision in his case.

we're going to do a program perhaps you so I'm sure we are but I am not happy with this decision the High Court says that he had arguable grounds for appeal from the court the earlier decision to extradite him I think he's absolutely I think that's absolutely right but then they give with one hand and they take away with the other because they're giving the American government the US government the Biden administration in other words an opportunity to provide assurances. And when that happens, alarm bells start ringing loudly with me. Johan, thank you for that super chat.

Sparky says, for one word, smugnerance. Interesting. Sparky says, build a better world with bricks. Let's see here. G.I.1416 says, why do you think the mainstream media got the invasion day narrative at the start of the SMO somewhat right. I remember thinking it was fake.

I thought it was fake. Up to pretty much the last moment. I began, as I've said many times, to think that something was really going to turn out horribly wrong at the time of the Munich Security Conference. I still have this view that they got it right because they willed it. They intended it to happen at that time.

there was the shelling of Dombas, which many people deny happened, but which did happen. And I think they knew perfectly well that at that point the Russians would have no real option but to intervene, because that is what they always said they would do. Yeah. I would just say GI 1416 go to the live stream we did yesterday with Jacques Botty. He talks about the very point that you made, Alexander. Exactly. Exactly.

He gets into it in detail as well. So just check out that live stream. OMG Puppie says uncontrolled immigration may be a Democratic party up, but that doesn't explain why it is also happening in Europe, UN involvement in Central America, etc. Well, indeed, yeah. Yeah. He's a good point.

Yeah, I think David touched on that as well in his answer. I should say that it is not as, we're not talking about in Europe a tidal wave as big yet as the one in the United States. I mean, four million people, I believe a year. I've never heard of anything like that. Sir Mug's game says a plain close invasion is enacted

because the idea of a family wage puts all of Congress in rage. Sparky says, remove Israel's economic and military aid and they'll soon learn to get along with their neighbors or else dissolve into the region. Well, I think that, I mean, going back to our earlier discussion, I mean, you know, when you could perhaps understand what Moshe Dayan was saying,

you know, about Israel needing to be like a mad, a rabid dog that you needed to keep away from when it was first established, you know, from the 40s and 50s and 60s. I'm not saying by the way that it was the right strategy even then, but there was a kind of logic to it. But now, when it's been around for a long time, for decades, it's a well-established state, do they really need to behave like that? If you behave like that, what you're doing is you're isolating yourself in your own region. I mean, you're not going to make any kind of stable relationships with anybody.

And I think the sooner they drop that type of strategy, the better it will be for them. MF71 from Rumble says, after the Moscow terrorist attack, will Putin delete Newland? Well, I don't think so. I don't think this is his style, actually. I mean, this is absolutely not his style. But if they do satisfy themselves. that there is a Ukrainian trace, they will go after the people in Ukraine. That I do think.

But I don't think he will ever go after someone like Newland or any of the official people in the United States. That isn't at all what Putin does or what the Russians do. MF71. Just remember that when it comes to poisoning, Putin is the world's worst poisoner. Yeah, true enough. It's the worst. The worst. Yeah.

Let's see here. Sir Mug's game says, The Treasures of Sierra, Russia drove the British, the French, and the Germans to madness and defeat. Now the Americanos have followed suit. Well, it's like the treasure chest at the end of the rainbow. You try and go there, and you find that you never get there, because that's what's going to happen.

And it is driving them that. I think this is more the Europeans, actually, than the Americans in truth. I think the Americans, the neocons, have been playing a geopolitical game. The Europeans have been playing what they think of as a more neocolonial,

imperial, old-style imperialist game. Bridget Hall, welcome to the drag community. Hugh Jazz, welcome to the drag community. Jeff Beckford, thank you for that super sticker. Ellen says, all else aside, when our rulers in DC see the tens of thousands of innocent deaths and maimed, they are funding. Is there not a bit of human conscience or guilt? I don't see it.

I do get any sense of that at all, to be honest. Yeah, I don't get a sense of guilt at all. Sparky says Newland and her NISI minions don't necessarily need to work with the CIA to pull off terror attacks, like the recent one. The State Department has their own spooks and affiliates, if need be. I have no doubt that if Newland had wanted to get in touch with some bad sort of people, she could do so. I think I said that recently in a program that I did, but I've no doubt that can be done. They could have done it. Whether she did is, of course, another matter.

I mean, I don't know. I mean, this would be an extreme wild thing, even for Newland to do. But then who knows? Mustafa says Europeans claiming Russia is a war machine and not going to stop on Ukraine. What do you think about this claim? No, I don't think so at all. I think that if you look at Russian history, they'd be saying this ever since the 18th century.

I mean, they have. You know, you follow European history. You read what people are saying about the Russians. They're always saying that the Russians are out to conquer the whole of Europe. Napoleon said it. He did. And it never happens. I do think the Russians are about that at all.

I think what they are overwhelmingly concerned about is their own security. There are many, many things they want to do within their own country. I think they are overwhelmingly focused on that. And what they want from us is that we leave them alone, which is something we never seem to understand or want to do. Yeah. Chris H says, Garland Nixon said in his last podcast with Jody Bear, that he would be traveling for a week. Oh, thank you.

We have it. Let's see here. Give me one sec. Alexander Valies. Thank you for that super sticker Valies. And from Sir Mug's game, Bravo, to the Alexes, for keeping a lid on their passions while analyzing Gaza, while most ran screaming into traffic,

the Duran, the professionals, the Boidey and Doyle of Geopolitics, if you remember the TV show. Of course I do. I remember it very well from, you know, long ago, the professionals. Back in the 1970s, it was indispensable television. Thank you very much for your very kind words. Sir Muggesame says, Alexander, what about Maba, make America British again? They seem ripe for the plucking. I think that in Britain, we have enough problems. You don't will the United States upon us.

Sparky says Bipartisan Telecommunications Act of 1996 It should be repealed I was a phone company engineer and recognized its major problems back then but thought I'd be gone by the time it manifested itself David should look at the Telecommunications Act

should brush up a Telecommunications Act 1996 in 1996 it's important Isn't that the Bill Clinton? Yeah, go on I was going to say isn't that the Bill Clinton Act Alexander Sparky? I think it is that act. I think it's the act which, as we know, gave the exemptions to the social media companies and all of those things.

Consolidated the media into six companies? Companies, exactly, yes. And opened all kinds of things. I think it is an important act, but I'm not going to pretend that I know for sure. And I don't want to talk about such an important topic off the top of my head. Sparky says Kamala drove Putin over the edge at the Munich Security Conference leading to the SMO. I've never forgotten that speech that she did then. I mean, it was absolutely wild.

I mean, she was absolutely intoxicated with the sort of sense of euphoria that was already there in the room. But she wasn't the only one. I mean, Behrbock was speaking and she was absolutely crazy. And of course, Zelensky himself made one of the most astonishing. I've ever seen. And they were all doing it. Johnson was there, Boris Johnson too.

Alexander says, don't let Sparky fund the whole thing. Get out these cards, patriots. These guys, the Alexanders, are doing God's work. Thank you, Alexander, for that. Ricardo says, Mad Dog Strategy isn't such a good idea

when one considers what is done to Mad Dogs. Good point. Sparky says, Israel's pumped up way beyond itself with US money? Well, I think that what needs to happen in the Middle East is for the Israelis to take a good, hard look at their situation and ask themselves, what is all this money, all this war, all this fighting, all this expansion of settlements?

What is actually providing them? What they need to do is to make peace and not seek an elusive victory, which simply ends in war all the time. Samuel says, what is the current state of relations between Russia and Georgia now? It seems to me that Georgia has abandoned

the idea of joining NATO. I think it has. I think this is a much better relationship. Of course, there's lots of tensions within Georgia and there are people in Georgia who would like to return to those old policies. But the government seems stable. It seems been,

successful in seeing off challenges. And I think relations between Russia and Georgia are not close. I believe they still don't have diplomatic relations, but they are nonetheless able to communicate and coexist reasonably well with each other. Zaryel says Newland doesn't have to get in touch with bad people. All she needs to do is look in the mirror. That's the time. Thank you, Zaryl for that. Ricardo says the U.S. can use the U. Ukraine, IES connection to walk away from Project Ukraine, just a suggestion. I was thinking about that as well. Yeah.

Yeah, they can. They could do. This could be a way to shift to pivot. Yeah, they weren't, though. I mean, that's the trouble. We'd be given opportunity after opportunity to do it, even if this one were to come forward. They wouldn't do it. Brett Ferguson, thank you for that super chat.

Valerie VV. He says, is the Russian oligarchy substantial or a leftover belief from the 90s? how to Putin influence this, would love an in-depth video. I think the key thing to understand is that the Russian oligarchy never ultimately managed to get full control of Russian society. They gained control of a lot of the big industrial groups. But in a country such as that of Russia in the 1990s, there was nothing legitimate about their ownership of all of these assets.

So in the end, they were only powerful because of the fact that they had the backing at that time of the Kremlin, of Yeltsin and of the government. When power in the Kremlin changed, their weakness, their underlying weakness was exposed. And they were rolled back extremely fast, much faster than I think people in the West ever, ever expected or thought they would be. Yeah, Brett says, if Ollo was right, I think it's Ride the Tiger Time. Yeah. Alexander, I think that's everything I've got my question, which is just the final question, and then we'll wrap it up.

Yeah. In my video, I think I made a mistake in my video or I misinterpreted the resolution, the UN Security Council resolution. And you mentioned that it is legally binding. Yeah. I read when I did my report, I said it's. non-binding. I was reading a U.S., the U.S.

comments which state that it's non-binding. It's definitely not enforceable or it won't be enforced unless it goes to a chapter 7. Is that a correct assessment of the U.N. Security Council resolution, legally

binding to the majority, yes. Not legally, not binding to the U.S. And difficult, if not impossible to enforce now until it gets to a chapter seven yes there is a spectrum of security council of how security council resolutions can work so if you go to the text of this resolution now if it had called for a immediate ceasefire that would not have been binding because it's just a request

it caused for. If it had ordered, which you can do, by the way, an immediate ceasefire, that would absolutely be binding. The word that's used is demands. Demands. Demands. It decides.

It decides, exactly. It demands. Now, that, I think, 99% of lawyers, international lawyers, would say it's binding. It makes it binding. there is a little wriggle room and the Americans are using it. But if you go to the rest of the resolution, there is one particular paragraph that is there, which to my mind makes it conclusive that it is in fact intended to be binding.

And that is the last paragraph, which is that the Security Council remains seized of the matter. Now, that is a standard clause that the Security Council used. in binding resolutions. Because they say that if this, what it means is, if the resolution is not adhered to, the Security Council can return to the subject and make further decisions, which is the enforcement point that you were making.

In other words, you can impose sanctions, proceed to authorise military action, or do all of those things. Of course, this is where the Americans are certain to impose their veto. they will never agree to a Security Council resolution that imposes sanctions on Israel or, well, I mean, authorizing military action is out of the question.

But they will never agree to that kind of resolution by the Security Council, a Chapter 7 resolution. But this is, in my opinion, opening up the way to something like that. So if this resolution is flouted, there will be more resolution. coming down the line, saying that, you know, the Israelis are non-compliant. The United States will try to argue that it's not binding. Other states will insist that it is. That, as I said, is the prevalent view. And, of course, always behind it all there is the nuclear option,

taking it to the General Assembly under the Uniting for Peace formula. Okay, so Nigel says enforcing the, He asks enforcing the resolution. Would a general, my final question, and then we'll wrap it up. Will the general, if it goes to the general assembly and they vote on it, does that make it enforceable? Right. Like sanctions, et cetera, or like chapter seven sanctions, et cetera? Right.

Right. Bear in mind, I'm not an expert on this myself. We've got you here. We've got you here. There's a lot of confusion. There's a lot of confusion about the text in this resolution. Right. Right.

What I want to say is this. If it goes to the United Nations General Assembly, in general, UN General Assembly resolutions are non-binding. But there is a formula created, by the way, by the United States in the 1950s to over. override Soviet vetoes, which is called the uniting for peace formula. Now, I think it needs at least a two-thirds majority of states to support this. But if the General Assembly decides to adopt this formula, and they have to agree to that, and they pass a Uniting for Peace resolution, then I understand that they have the same

kind of powers that the Security Council does. And that could involve sanctions or it could involve authorising military action. As I understand it, when the United States got the United Nations to engage in the Korean War, it's not widely known, but the US forces that were fighting in North Korea, in Korea during the Korean War, were technically the UN forces. That was how they referred to. That was done through the mechanism of a Uniting for Peace resolution. Okay. Alfred, thank you for joining the direct community.

Alexander, thank you for doing the direct community. Eric Hatchett. Super chat. Alexander, we are finished. Thank you to everyone that joined us on this live stream. Thank you to David Sacks for a fantastic show. And thank you to everyone that watched us on Rock Fame. Odyssey, Rumble, YouTube, the durand.orgs.com,

and of course, our amazing, awesome. Moderators, Valies, Zarael, Tish M. Who else? Peter is with us. Did I see Reckless Abandon as well in the chat? I'm not sure, but thank you to our moderators for everything that you do. Alexander, let's call.

it's evening, good night. Absolutely. Thank you to everybody. Wonderful live stream. Take care.