Political systems are fundamentally shaped by geographic conditions, with river valley civilizations like China developing centralized bureaucratic states to manage large populations and defend against external threats, while European geography with its forests, plains, and dispersed settlements fostered decentralized political structures and civil society. This geographic determinism explains why different nations require different forms of government to maintain stability and prosperity.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
2026 07 22 Office Hours: 7 question answered
Added:And we're live.
>> Good morning everyone. It's Martin, Francis, and Kurt for the Natural Law Institute. This is our office hours Q&A session where we you submit your questions and we answer them. The way it usually works is uh uh Francis reads the question, Martin adds gives the usually correct answer, and I add depth and color. Um, today we have I don't know quite a few questions as usual. I think we're not really burning through our backlog, are we? Or are we?
>> We're making progress.
>> We're making progress. All right. All right. Well, mostly mostly because questions have slowed down.
>> No. Okay. Okay.
>> Audience has is waiting for us to catch up.
>> All right. Um All right. I guess let's go because I don't think I can answer the first I don't think I have anything to say about the first one.
>> Okay. Let's go with question one from co for the panel. I a recent poll from the public sentiment institute came out recently that one of the survey questions was regarding whether people identify as rapers some 7.8% of which replied yes. Nick Fuentes has mentioned previously how he believes his movement to be far larger than anyone publicly estimates. If this poll results resemble anything even more remotely close to the reality of country sentiment and this could mean that he has tens of millions of supporters nationwide. My question does the NI believe in Nick and AU person have more of a positive and negative effect on the movement distant right-wing and allies long-term goals. Do you see him getting in the way of dividing support as a tool or as a tool to help get people on board and possibly exposed to the NLI's work?
And would the NLI ever consider something like a conversation or podcast with Nick?
>> Uh, I don't have this hate towards him that a lot of people on the right seem to have. I think he helped move the discourse in the right direction, even if I don't agree with every position he ever expressed and don't want exactly what he wants. And yes, there are a lot of weirdos among gropers, but this is inevitable when you're attracting the dispossessed. You end up with a lot of people who are in that situation, not just because of the system, but also because of their own personality.
To some extent, this affects the whole broad right. The difference from the left is that the left takes care of its own weirdos or perhaps especially because they're weirdos given what leftism is.
There are some fat accusations. I have no way of verifying that where some direct collaboration is courts and I don't see any potential for it presently.
>> Wait, what did you just say there?
>> I'm saying I don't see us being anywhere near each other in positions to collaborate.
Yeah, >> even if we're moving in a in broadly similar direction.
>> Yeah, at least we try, as much as we like to [ __ ] because that's everybody does, right? We try to work on how do you fix this problem. Uh we don't try to share the misery of the problem that much.
>> Yes. Um, and so I, you know, guys like him are doing a pretty good job of making the moral outrage feel morally outraged feel justified in the moral outrage, right?
Um, and he gives them the context to understand it and argue it in in it. I think that's fine. Um, that's just not our job, right? Um uh our job is to actually find in create solutions that are implementable that will alter the course of events either for the medium term or certainly for the long term.
So yeah, Martin's right as always.
>> So far I've seen clips of him talking about this story. He's actually doing a pretty good research.
Mhm.
>> And what research is it done?
>> Like on history of Zionism and its influence in America and what intelligence agencies have done throughout history like that.
>> Does he just the C and followers just represent a u a faction within a dispossessed young man demography?
Shall I say discontent young man democracy >> he's different from broader dissident right in that he presents himself in an entertaining way that can attract even people from outside of this event. Right.
Whereas everyone else relies on people to get there through some pipeline whether MAGA or Libertarian or Bernie bro.
>> Okay. You think we answer that one?
>> I guess so. I don't have anything else to say.
>> I think this breaks the record as the shortest answer for the first question because usually takes an hour on the first question.
>> Maybe we should just always look for a question that only Martin can answer.
>> Uh it doesn't exactly work that way.
>> I I stick to the >> I would have to intentionally reorder them.
>> Yes. And I stick I and and and and I stick to the order that they're given.
It's only fair. It's one of >> All right, let's go next. What's the next one?
>> Principles.
>> Uh next one. Question two from Lucas.
This is a bit different, but let's see where it might take us. Many times I read Kurt writing about his genetic background being that of a lesser nobility, the aristocratic warrior class and then on the other hand remember him talking about the folly of the top nobility. Let us suppose that these biological deterministic theories are correct. But then that increasing one's self-awareness is also capable of at least sharpening those predispositions and helping people to correct their approach. My surname suggests that I am also from this land owning mortar class and for the reason of better knowing the self and the world I am interested in this topic. What is the nature of different causes? What is driving their behavior? What is the nature especially of those from the lesser nobility?
Lastly, what would you recommend for someone sharing these traits to compete in this world? especially when one feels like the current incentives are stuck more for someone with opposite disposition.
>> Kurt as an example makes this sort of determinism weaker. I'd love it if the theories were starting from aristocratic vario premises as opposed to bourja premises. But is that it's left to me to argue for a society that still produces that ethos and keeps merchants down.
All right. So, so I think the problem is my use of words uh which are uh technical and the interpretation of them as colloquial.
>> Um when sorry I can't tell there's noise in the background. Sorry. Um uh so when you say when I there's a couple of things first what does aristocracy means? It means people who have in the west it means uh people have accumulated uh usually land wealth and some degree of influence and as such because they've accumulated those things they demonstrate responsibility for those things. So the issue is respons responsibility in the west. This is particularly important especially in the feudal peri because without allies of the same nature you can't field enough resources or people because we had too much trouble with state formation. You can't do it without allies. So the noble classes, the aristo, the aristocratic classes tend to hold together just like in the feudal era or just like they did in the Roman era, just like they did during the step, right? Doesn't make any difference. Um those the people who are responsible uh are responsible because they're capable of that responsibility.
So that's the first thing to handle it.
The second thing is nobility is different from aristocracy. Nobility is that you is something you were appointed by the state. Aristocracy is a fact.
Nobility is a privilege.
In the west, we conflate these things, but too often in our verbal, but they're two different things in the technical sense. U you can be grant you can be enobbled, but you can't be aristocraticized.
You have to create your own aristocracy.
um or right but you you can be enabled by the state. What what's the difference? Um well aristocracy has dominion over its own its own assets and its own responsibilities but um and it may work in as it usually did in military cooperation with others. But nobility could be you could be granted nobility because you they want somebody to to manage this particular piece of territory or they want you could to be the freaking uh some chancellor or something or other right some someone in charge of something. So nobility is different from aristocracy.
Um the third piece which Martin brings up is um is the lesser nobility or I I bring up but Martin was alluding to uh with with teasing me. Uh lesser nobility is the people who are landowners and who fulfill military obligations and because of those things they usually have civic influence. In other words, they're the leadership in the region or whatever.
This varies because there are parts of say like England um which is the one I know best uh England where there is uh an aristocratic or holding or there are there is a nobility there whose job is to govern a particular area but that isn't evenly spread out in parts of England there is no such group of these people and so the lesser nobility forms a more what we would understand as a civil society on together and they govern together when you start to see in in early America when they have a church right and there's a pastor what they call him pastor there um a preacher there those pre preachers are educated and they for and the civil society is run by the people in the community often right out of that church if it's not run I mean that's the big civic building that's the equivalent of go it's equivalent of where news is shared uh uh conversations are had um education is levied and uh people dis discuss matters of the community. Um but this is just a continuation of a very ancient tradition in the west which is if you need to have a government emerge because there's a lot of trade or whatever you will have one and if you don't have that you don't have that or a need for it um the people will form the self-government is necessary. Um this is because it's pretty hard in the west to concentrate unlike the river valleys you know the the the the you know Egypt the Nile the Tigers Euphrates the Indus the yellow river etc. it unlike those areas where the state can actually easily develop um because land is concentrated, productivity is concentrated and the water forms a highway that doesn't happen in Europe and so power is power is starts out being distributed because of the uh the uh west Indo-Uropean group strategy and it it maintains its way through Greece and Rome and the Germanic states and into Mad and into relative ative modernity right up until the formation of the modern state which is probably I would say be Napoleon's restoration the formation of the modern state and the Anglo um development of the modern rule of law state.
So so so when you're saying these things there's there's there's not one universal condition everywhere. There's places where uh the aristocracy is very powerful. Uh places where they are less powerful and they are really offset somewhat by nobility and the administration. And there are places where that there is neither of those in sufficient force except at some distance where the um uh the the locals actually manage their affairs. So, in my family's case, that's um the uh West Midlands, and um there was just nobody there, but it was a market town. It's at the end of a long river coming up from the southwest. And so, uh it's a market town. And so, what do market towns do?
They have they develop their own commercial interests and the commercial people tend to run the town. If I go back before that into into Normandy, um my family was on a town called Little obviously do little um which is on the Sherborg Peninsula and it's again a port city and so um you see my family signing a lot of documents for people um you know testifying that they're good persons and whatever etc. Um and they are again a port city self-governing. So you can't have that though when you get to a Paris or a London. I it just would get out of hand. But in these smaller areas you can do that. We still see this today. Um in a town I grew up with 10,000 people. My father was in politics and they ran the local government by the just the basically the businessmen and professionals in the town. Right? That was just how it ran. The idea that there's this big lordship government over us is is a is a is a cont is a modern thing. That's not a that's not a historical thing. U except in some areas like very big dense cities. Um in the German principalities there's 380 of them or something 380 little princoms right they have theoretically the German emperor there but he has very little power. Um and um the and the cities where we get like Hans Hapa from is they had what are called the free cities which were places that were allowed allowed to have their own sort of laws but they couldn't export whatever their problems were onto the countryside which would remained the king's domain to rule. um the uh the same thing happens I mean so so you get this idea that it's it's the the there are criteria that determine demand for the scale of government and that there are different groups that populate these things. So you would have aristocracy in the manners. You would have uh nobility in the in the places that needed to be fed centrally managed. And then if if there's central management, but there's no need for like excessive government like in some of these market towns, then you just the market towns wouldn't have either. So when you say lesser nobility, it would be uh the people who run the civil society. These people almost always have certainly minded military roles. So you have your credibility is not just your skill or whatever. It's the fact that you are part of the extended military order. So there there's a king and then there's your local aristocracy that's responsible for you know raising his people and then you have the uh local people who are responsible for raising the people.
below below them. So my family is usually uh sergeants and captains basically and that's the you know that's the middle rank o of those people. you got generals and stuff, but most, you know, that that's later on, but largely it's um my family is mostly sergeants, captains, um and there of course there are some privates in there, but mostly it's uh it's that that uh what we would think of as the the the um the lower upper class today in administrative sense or the uh um it's not really just the upper middle class. Those people have cred credibility, but it would be the lower upper class that had the has uh both uh both uh local respons uh excuse me, personal responsibility, local responsibility and state responsibility, military responsibility.
And so that's just how they did it. And it's because there was no government until very recent to till relatively recently, not recently, but relatively late that was strong enough to be able to to govern the the way that the the territory of the West was. So that's why that's why we had that issue. So when you ask me this, I'm so I've tried to provide you this context. When you say aristocratic warrior class, that sounds a lot like Greece um or it sounds more tribal. you you you you if you're an aristocracy and you're responsible and you're in a the western model, it means you have to provide defense.
There's no aristocracy that doesn't provide defense. You have to um and so uh so when you say lesser aristocracy, when you say aristocracy, that's what you mean. When you say lesser aristocracy, what you mean is people who don't don't uh aren't the top part, but they're the people that handle the rest of it. And then um uh then there are a nobility who are people by a state implemented by the state specifically for state purposes. So uh that's the world that we want to look at the world.
So when you ask me these questions um by uh that's the words those are what the words mean that I'm using. I'm using the words with what they actually mean in our historical context. When you ask me that these are the next thing is there's a question about biological determinism.
There is very little class rotation in history. um class is generally genetic because genetics determine your intelligence and your capacity to to uh self-regulate and to um your intelligence is basically your ability to identify patterns and eliminate errors or or avoid errors and your um impulse regulation is your is important right that's your impulse regulation and which we know is the problem of the race differences in the west in the west for example um and we uh we have uh problems of uh conscientiousness. So there's that that particular issue too. So when you get down into the classes, what you're really talking about is how much responsibility can you bear? Can you bear responsibility for yourself or are you just the very bottom? Can you bear responsibility for your family? Okay, that's good. Can you uh be bear bear responsibility for uh performing some sort of work that on your own? Can you bear responsibility for organizing others to do some kind of work? Can you bear responsibility for assets and capital allocated to the people who decide who is going to do the work that right? Do you have the responsibility for the uh capital the capital distribution that is going to be allocated to those people the people that do that or that assign the work the people that do the work and the people underneath them who do the is basically responsibility. Now we think of it we tend to think of these things in economic terms today but it doesn't make any difference if it's that or setting up a hunting camp or whatever this is all the same difference. Um so classes tend to have low rotation. Um it doesn't mean they don't have any rotation. And this is why is think of your population's mean right your your distribution right your mean as the yeah your mean as the average person right now. If your average person has uh uh Japanese or Chinese uh abilities there's a higher distribution. If they have uh European, they have lower. If they have uh South Eurasian, they have quite a bit lower.
They have uh Austronesian, they have quite a bit lower. If they have African, they have quite a bit lower. So that that spectrum moves around, right? So what does that mean about the responsibility that each group can bear and the distribution of people in that group? The argument being that um that uh basically intelligence is ends up being in practical terms the capacity of intelligence and neotenic evolution is neotenic evolution produces both intelligence and the self-regulation and the um what's the other one intelligence and the conscientiousness the time preference necessary to be able to bear responsibility for increasingly complex collections of uh capital whether they things >> I have to object that these are sufficient factors to think of men and women that have equivalent uh IQ and conscientiousness are they likely to be totally capable of very well >> great question and the answer is no uh because and this is this is one of you're pointing out a great problem with intellectual history is we're usually talking about men because women have no meaning in these contexts and historically. Um the problem with women is that they do not h they may be conscientiousness but only under high time preference not under um in other words consumption. They don't have high time preference um under they don't have um conscientiousness for low time preference which is capitalization. So men tend to capitalize, women tend to consume. Um women men tend to have uh social have economic and political and military responsibility and women tend to have familial uh self uh child and familial responsibility and sometimes limited social responsibility. So you are correct. Absolutely correct. Um, I'm trying to use this I I am probably uh using men as the primary influencers here. And what you're really saying is, yeah, that's great. But actually, if you look at the distributions, uh men are offset from women in this category by quite a bit in the in what they're able to do. If that wasn't the case, you would see uh very different distributions of the roles in society and very different economic distributions of men and women in societies. I I only used it as the most obvious example. My point is the these traits aren't sufficient for responsibility.
Uh I'm sorry, I know there's something meaningful that you're trying to get at.
Um, I was trying to describe that group differences produce diff or produce different means and that the responsibility that a group can hold and the responsibility of an individual within a group is going to vary based on the group. That's the point I was trying to make. If I'm uh can you try try to bring whatever point you're trying to bring in, can you bring it in and I'll and I'll try to work with it. I think that would apply to groups as well. Just that intelligence and conscientiousness uh aren't sufficient to determine capacity for responsibility that there are very clearly other important factors that are most obvious in sex.
>> Yeah. I I I mean like one of the cures is intelligence cures everything like in your case.
>> You're scary smart.
>> I No, it doesn't. And sometimes too much intelligence is even a problem, >> right? So, but that doesn't mean the distribution isn't true or that these personality traits in a distribution aren't true. we you are correct by saying uh these things are these things describe distributions and uh I I agree with you. So all I'm would say is that uh no matter what you do you're talking about a distribution you'll have outliers in every distribution. It's the same issue for uh genetic uh genetic distribution of classes. We say there's little class rotation. It's true but that's because people tend to mate inside their classes. Um there that doesn't mean that there won't happen to be a coincidence of uh genetics within you know a lower class that that manifests an an extraordinary abilities.
it happens you we all are about six generations uh variation from the mean of our population right um that's all and so uh great families are very careful about uh make careful about breeding with in other words who they marry who they allow in the family and that's why they're able to contain an advantage over time um uh more impulsive people don't do that they they they don't even consider consider it very deeply. Um so that that's the point I guess that's the point I was trying to make is that the the biological deter the biological determinism consists of a number of um of trends we can or patterns we can identify but the the the rules I'm stating are the basic principles by which these distributions occur and are observed. So, you know, if we study and we have class rotation, it there isn't much the hell much of it despite the fact that we live in the society where it's most possible. What you will get is economic class rotation even if you don't get genetic and social and uh uh political class rotation. So you will get some nitwit who's a entertainer or athlete or something and you know you get who's the really smart Charles Barkley. Is that the really who's the really big guy?
>> The really big Chris Lang.
>> No it's black guy. He's been out of it um for a while. No, not Charles Barkley.
Um Shaq. Shaq. All right. That's a [ __ ] smart guy. Right. Despite the >> like Shila Neo. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, he's he's he's he's a better investor than nine tens of investors, right? He's really good. That's a smart guy. Um, so you can't just classify everything. So, has he created a permanent class shift or has he created an economic class shift? We won't know until six generations go by, right? Um, but in general, I I can defend the arguments I I make. I think Martin, I can't tell if you're just saying you a a princ a principle of a distribution does not necessarily describe the outliers within that distribution. I would say yes.
>> No, I'm saying there are distributions of other traits that factor into it that we must consider.
Intelligence and conscientiousness are insufficient.
Intelligence, conscientiousness, and time preference is what I use.
>> That's a big one for sure.
>> Okay. Um, >> maybe I'd say neuroticism matters on some level. Certainly.
>> Mhm.
And that time preference is usually this gets the sexes into it. Um, what is the nature of different classes?
Well, what's driving their behavior is self-interest. All right, that's self-interest within the people tend to try to maximize their success within the limits of their ability to fail. Um, this is usual human behavior everywhere and so people don't people tend to gravitate toward the level where they are successful without failing.
If they think they can do better, they often will, but they will also try to offset it with the risk of failure. Um I think I've had what's the nature specialist? Yeah. N lesser no to handle that. Would you recommend sir? Um I don't have recommendations really because I'd have to talk to you to ever people ask me this all the time. Um I don't have recommendations. That's not my job so to speak. Um if I knew you very well I could say how to eliminate errors. If you want to talk to somebody who can tell you what to do with your life, that's Noah and he's [ __ ] hella good at it. He's also kind of expensive.
You talk to Noah Ravoy and that man will straighten you out. No questions about it. Um, and that's his gift. U, I don't claim that facility. I don't claim that capacity. I identify errors and I will if you if you're someone close to me and I feel that I'm not going to hurt your feelings, whatever, and I see something in you, I'll I'll answer it. But, um, that's not my job. My job is economics, politics, Ukraine strategy, uh you know, etc. Okay.
>> So, so my issue is uh we talk about how the unique European conditions created the unique European decentralized strategy as compared to Asia or other places >> centralized Chinese river points.
>> Yes. The problem is that we've basically created the Asian conditions with modern technology and so we're getting >> Hold on. Say say that again.
>> Oh, I see what you mean. You mean like as in in internet and after industrialization.
>> Yeah. And high speed of movement.
>> Yes.
>> Right. And now the internet is essentially acting as the in effect shaping society like the river always did. Yeah. And if we value European strategy, then we must maintain conditions conditions within which it's advantageous.
>> I mean, you see that around here, right?
I think there's this is something that as an Asian I couldn't quite understand until I came to term with it in that I have friends and you I've seen people uh around here who like to go into uh say the panhandles of Idaho or out the middle of nowhere and uh build their own settlement there whether it's a logging cabin or or in the case of um the the UNA bomber out in the middle of nowhere uh little shack and for someone with the you know like unless you're from that part of the world and born in that part of the world for us is unfathomable like why would you choose to abandon civilization and go out there live like a wild man >> and yet it seems to be ingrained into the European psyche somewhere Yeah, but unfortunately it's isolated individuals and it doesn't translate into independent political power.
>> Well, because any independent political power like the white area nation people in the idol panhandle gets targeted by the feds and also look at what happened that way.
I'm just reinforcing your point that modern technology and the overwhelming power of the state has made that increasingly difficult if not impossible.
>> Well, I'm going to end the state if we don't change course.
>> So you devol So the solution is devolve the state.
>> Yeah.
like China except not even homogeneous.
>> Although Chinese and China is not homogeneous. There's something like 50 what do they call it? 50 54 ethnicities.
They may look Chinese. Well actually >> well to us they do but I mean >> to the Chinese they don't look Chinese.
Certainly not certain. Okay. Certainly not the Mongolians and certainly not the Tibetans.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I know Europeans are probably more related to each other than Chinese from different ends of the country.
>> The Chinese from different part of the country.
Like if you go out to the Shinjang district which is the the northwest part of China. I mean you could be you could easily mistaken yourself as being middle Asia one of the stands.
>> Mhm.
>> The weaguers it's not that diff even mean that obviously.
>> All right.
We kill that one.
>> Yeah. That that's the actually you know the question two should be our question one or follows the usual question one of taking up almost an hour to answer.
>> Yeah.
>> So yes that is the problem.
>> All right move on.
>> Yep.
>> Question three. Please deliberate in parenthesis. Please note I beg pardon if my message fails to follow proper English grammar as English is not my first language. Uh, welcome to the neighborhood, dude.
>> Yeah.
>> Yet I consider myself to be able to make my ideas clear enough in a polite and educated manner. Absolutely. I have read about your stance against dual polymoralistic frameworks. Yet I must disagree on that principle provided I understand the position correctly. The addresses for solution of current global problems by enacting common world spending laws is indirect opposition to what is considered by myself or even your definition national law. You imply that self-determination, self-expression and self-government is a right to be held by all peoples. Yet your proposed law is based on European principles.
Doesn't this contradict those first mentioned principles? Following on this thought, I would like to make the next question. Should enemies be treated in the same way as kin in uh I just lost my place because you press where was I? Uh >> in case of delinquency.
>> Okay. Should energy be treated the same way as can in case of delinquency? I would vehemently argue against as I find it preferable that petty crimes like theft and robbery be committed by fellow who would find themselves in a more disfavored position and who ultimately would repay it be it willingly through enforcement or through economic participation than an enemy who would only enrich their ingroup and subsequently their cause against one's own kind. In a similar manner, find it better that a fellow kinsman would take from an adversary than from their own people. This is obviously double moralistic outlook.
Yet, it's very well observed throughout history since time immemorial, even in animals.
Kurt, please stop moving things.
>> Yeah, an accident. Sorry.
thus deductively >> thus deductively being part of the natural law. Thank you in advance for your response.
>> Uh you're correctly responding to the universalistic tendency of the concept of natural law throughout its history and it's one of the reason I now avoid the term to avoid the confusion. The only sense in which I can get behind it is that I want law to be based on observable, testable natural causality, which today appears to be ironically opposed to the so-called scientific governance with its flimsy models and little regard for human nature. In any case, I want that understanding to be used in a manner that's best for our people. Meaning for entirely particularist ants, there must be zero tolerance for anyone who claims to be doing something best for everyone and promoting universal cooperation as that always turns out to be what's best for merchants and managers.
Okay, this is a complex question um which I've um written quite a bit about. So I'm kind of all right.
Okay. First of all, your ability to express yourself is fine. I don't know what you're worried about. I I actually find the people who are most articulate most likely to apologize. Isn't that funny? You know what I mean? Uh Um I have taken a stance on poly polylegal frameworks which is recommended by the libertarians.
Um um I I and I I so I I absolutely take that position. Um because what happens is you end up with uh you end up with conflicts and you end up with one group of people in the same polity praying on another because they use a different dispute resolution system.
>> Depends on the way they mean it. Like I be in favor of poly legal system but there's one court court tied to the location not multiple competing ones tied to >> the same argument.
>> Same argument. Yeah.
>> Um all right. So um so when you say polymor polymoralistic frameworks so what you I know what you're doing in this thing is you're assuming we mean the positiva in other words you should do but we don't do that in natural law what natural law says is if you if you do this people will react this way right that's number one um The next thing is if you want to pro cooperate, you avoid doing those things.
And number three is if you want to do avoid doing those things, we suggest these institutional structures that have been proven to avoid help people avoid doing those things, right? And that's norms, attritions, values, institutions, laws, reg etc. So, so, so I think there's a tendency for you to for for you as a person and most people living to confuse uh what we're talking about as a religion rather than um a uh a science of cooperation. That's all we're talking about. So, what are the terms of cooperation? if you live in the desert versus if you live in um a a jungle, a wet jungle, right? Rain rainforest.
Rainforest is what I was looking for.
Versus you live on uh on a temperate river versus you live on a grassland uh versus if you live uh on the mountain sides, right? the the the norms that you need to establish for people to cooperate in these areas are different.
And so the because the strategies for people to cooperate and work together in these areas are different. So the the negative don't do these bad things is different from the positive. In our case, we prefer to do things this way.
There's a negativa and a positiva.
what people what's universal is the negativa. Don't steal my [ __ ] right? Uh don't hurt me, right? Those are the negativas. Um the abstraction of it is don't impose costs on my demonstrated interests, but the demonstrated interest portfolio might be slightly different in one group versus another. That doesn't mean that don't impose costs on my demonstrated interests won't cause the same universal human behavior. It means that what demonstrated interest portfolios look like in different groups is different. So I I don't I don't >> what he is saying is that just because some other groups don't want their interests imposed on it doesn't imply we shouldn't impose on their interests unless costs come back to us somehow because we don't owe them anything.
Okay. But then what's the consequence of doing that?
>> Well, depends.
>> Natural law is people will react negatively to have costs imposed upon them.
>> Yeah. But maybe it's worth it >> or maybe alter that doesn't alter the determinism of what's going to happen.
>> Right? So there's two points here. One is a how will people what's the natural law of human behavior and what's the natural law of human of cooperation and you're saying that if you don't want to cooperate because it's not pro possible you will you can't do anything about the natural law of human behavior but you can do something about the the natural law of uh cooperation. Then there's the third layer which all other things considered which group will evute evolutionary innovation adaptation and advantage faster than the rest and that's the third layer which is the natural law of evolutionary computation.
So it doesn't so it it is true that uh that we that people humans react well all animals do react to imposition of cost upon their demonstrated interests would negatively right that they do um they we h there's there's a number of features in there and their behavior they're going to do they're going to re be at least social animals are going to be more uh more curious of cooperating with people who don't impose and who do advantage both parties by cooperation.
Then there's the um so that would that takes us from the natural law of conflict to the natural law of cooperation and then to the natural law of polities which is the rate at which a polity will develop if it has the greatest amount of cooperation in time.
It's just it's immutable. You can't get around it. Um so the big problem for many cultures is that they are limited as is subsaharan Africa they are limited by the demographic distribution of their talents. Um you get in the Middle East they're limited by the distribu the uh the distribution of their socopolitical economic uh structure religion. If you go into the East Asia I'm not going to say this was oh let's go into let's go into um uh India first. they are limited both by um their uh institutions and by their dem their genetic distribution. If you go to East Asia, they're advantaged by their genetic distribution, but they're disadvantaged um in the sense that they have for some reason developed uh dependence on a state in order to the state to resolve differences rather than resolve differences themselves. So uh and there's a reason for that because it's an empire, right? Whereas Europe is is never been able to form an empire.
It's only been able to form temporary federations.
So they could do it because they have rivers and the river valleys of productivity and we couldn't do it because we have forests and the Eurasian plane and you know whatever else. So, so, so the net result is is you have these when we say the natural law or when I say the natural law, uh, which natural law am I talking about? Am I talking about the laws of nature, physics? Am I talking about the natural law of behavior? Am I talking about the natural uh law of cooperation?
Or am I talking about the natural law of evolutionary computation between groups?
And I'm usually talking about all of them.
So um and so I think this is Martin you are correct and we have ch I have chosen the natural law on purpose because I consider my work the end point of the Aristotilian natural law project. That's how I that's how I look at it. Um in the sense that there that by using existing terms and not envelop and uh using neologisms what we have run into the problem of is people using colloquial meaning to attach to what we actually have as technical terms. And so I I understand it's it's a it's a tradeoff. Um I just learned early on and it's hops blame hop uh Hans Hop for correcting me is that uh to avoid neologisms and if necessary reframe terms into correct definitions right um and state those definitions um instead and so we pay a cost of it and I think that most of the time when we are having discussions like this or or differences is we're actually uh violating Aristotle's uh basic um is it Aristotles or Socrates? Um that says first you must define your terms and so uh we've defined our terms. I've defined my terms and people are using people are using their terms to interpret what I'm saying instead of my terms to interpret what I'm saying which is normal. I understand it.
Okay. What' you say Martin? I didn't get that. It just didn't sound like Socrates to me. In Socratic dialogues from Plato, they argue about definitions and often at the end nobody ends up the wiser.
>> I just realized in so far this is Frama science of cooperation.
I seem to be the only one who >> it's actually Voltater. Sorry.
>> Oh, I seem to be the only one who >> No, it's Socrates. It's Socrates.
Voltail re reframed Socrates, but it's Socrates. Yes, I was correct. Sorry. Go ahead. Sorry, Martin. Go ahead.
>> And so far, this is framed as science of cooperation. and I seem to be the only one who took on the inquiry uh into all the reason why someone shouldn't be cooperated with >> and there I think it's because it's I agree uh what you're really doing I think correct me if I'm wrong is I'm saying two things uh the Anglo my Anglo historical model and the American model that it runs from uh is not is the is the naval not military model of the continent and so the optim we can take we can look at optimism where the continent has to look at more the more pessimistic side of group strategy so that that's number one >> which means we actually have to factor in laws of nature that anglo were free to ignore but are no longer free to ignore and are paying the costs.
>> Yeah, but I I I that's not what you said. So So you're saying you're bringing these things up and I'm saying yeah, I think they're freaking obvious.
Um I think the problem is we have gone through a period where the in the post-war period where the Americans in order to not have another world war were very disciplined about creating um uh universalism, right? Universalism uh as a means of preserving peace through generating trade that would make us so interdependent that we would not engage in another world war. Yeah, I see a great I see that as evil making everyone dependent.
>> Well, I mean the Chinese see it as evil, right? They because it doesn't allow them to exert their dominance, right?
The way they want, >> right? No. I Are they right?
>> Yes.
>> Can we not use a a how do you say value um what's the opposite of value neutral?
I mean, good and evil, those are value judgments.
>> Good or bad. How would it be good for them to become dependent if they don't have to be?
>> Well, they've made others dependent on them. That's what they've done, right?
That was >> of course good for them.
>> But but you cannot put it in the frames that Americans were doing what's best for everyone. They were doing what was best for well really their elites, not even for normal Americans.
>> Well, that's not true. There's no way that's true. It's obviously better. The question is whe it's better for everybody in the world. There's nothing like it for Americans would be not to even get involved in those wars in the first place.
>> They had no need to do that.
>> Which we had no way of knowing at the time. Uh pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl plenty of people knew that including majority of the population >> possibly. Okay. No, no, you're correct that they knew that. Is it was it possibly true or not? I don't know. Um that's you're still avoiding the issue which is that what problem are you trying to solve? Right. And I'm trying to develop a science, right? which is a baseline from which other things can be measured. And what you seem to be thinking is that I should develop a pragmatism independent of the science. And I'm like, that's not my [ __ ] job. That's that's your job, Martin. That's why you're valuable as as an intellectual in the organization.
>> I'm not doing is independent of the science. Just recognizing that laws of cooperation include the fact that uh and notric cooperation is always the winning strategy, not universal cooperation.
>> The what? The what? The what isentric cooperation.
>> Oh, absolutely. Ethnosentric cooperation is always better. Um I I I still don't think that for some reason this keeps coming up and I'm like what is my what am I trying to do versus what are you trying to do and I usually see it as I'm trying to de develop a general rule right a science of of basically a science of evolution the velocity of evolutionary computation makes decidability possible. So what I do is I make decidability possible by creating a baseline that measures variation from it. What you are saying is along the baseline there are trade-offs and I'm saying absolutely but that doesn't mean the baseline isn't the system of measurement to vary the trade to measure the trade-offs against.
It is. And so uh I I think what you think I'm saying is everybody should do this. What I'm saying if in order to design a government or design a population or whatever you want to do um you this you will must measure your tradeoffs against this standard or else you won't know the trade-offs that you're making and the accumulated costs of variation from it. So like you said uh essentially the communist government of China thinks they're communists.
They're not. They're fascists. They've adopted the German model. What's the matter, Francis? Is that true or no?
>> No, I was going to say they're not communist. Like you can't have a communist government that basically runs a market economy like that that goes against everything.
>> I I say communism there's ideology, but really it's it's not a real thing. There's Stalinism and Troskism. And Stalinism is basically fascism.
>> Yes.
>> Troskism is just a way to produce a permanent revolution.
a country.
>> Thank you. You are a very wise man. Um so my so the point is I would I have argued in the past that fascism is actually the best order. Um the problem is when you say that people um assume that I'm talking about go kill a bunch of people when what I mean is uh ethnosentric cooperation using a marriage between the people and the state because the state's the largest financeier right you can coordinate the most resources most effectively right that's what I mean uh so the I don't I don't there's no record of me saying anything other than ethnosentric coop cooperation is usually better. On the other hand, you know, um, uh, some groups are really good at integrating other groups and some groups are not. And some groups are really good at integrating and some groups are not.
So it doesn't, you know, ethnosentric co cooperation doesn't necessarily mean that you can't have groups uh, groups work together. It means that the groups can't be marginally indifferent enough that they have a conflict in the pursuit of goals.
That's that's all that matters. Um >> there's always a genetic cost mixing.
I'd say if groups are to cooperate, they have to cooperate as groups and not mix into one group unless there's no other way for them to survive.
>> I can't really say that. Here's the way to look at it. you always have regression to the mean.
So if but if your groups are three points apart, that's different than if they're 15 points apart. If your groups are three points apart or six points apart and um you have regression toward the mean in the upper upper uh quintile and in the lower quintile, that's not going to change anything substanti.
And so I so uh you know this is the >> old but the point isn't what kind of traits my people have. The point is they're my people. They have their evolutionary history. They have their genetics even people with similar >> agree with that. Why not just make that choice? My argument with you, I think, boils down to um the way I describe things, I can defend my people. And the way you describe things, I don't know if you can defend your people. Maybe you can. You have to put a government in place that will that will produce the end you want. But if you do that, will the people leave? I don't know. Um some of them will stay and some of them will leave. But it's the pe as you move up the opportunity scale the people who are constrained are going to leave.
>> So is that really working in your favor?
I don't know.
>> On the other hand, if the world is [ __ ] chaos, what >> I think if if we actually start thinking about ourselves as groups, >> then alliance may be contingent on >> we do think of ourselves as groups.
>> We do think the only people that don't are the are the [ __ ] talking media classes. Everybody, everybody else on earth talks about people as groups. The the pro the thing about white people is we're the least least group oriented.
>> I'm saying if we do that that maybe the condition of alliance with the richer group maybe that they will not create economic conditions for our best people that would make them leave.
>> Yeah. Okay. Well, maybe they would. I don't know. Uh but if the the when you talk about it, you're talking about severely constraining people. Um and I'm saying that my experience is if you severely constrain people, they're going to they're going to the people who have the ability to innovate, adapt, and change are going to leave and go for places where they can they can innovate, adapt, and change because people are going to pursue their best interests.
What you get is the same problem you get with communism is if you have too much control, you regress, you regress to the lowest. In other words, you move the needle of the population down to where you're satisfying these people but at the cost of the people who actually make a difference. So I I I don't I don't I feel like we're talking in circles here because again uh I don't that's not it's like we're arguing about something. I'm like look I just stated what I do. I'm creating a science a baseline from which you can measure variation and variation is whether it's institutional strategic institutional nor or normative or uh ideological or religious it doesn't make any difference what are the costs and benefits of me adopting some variation from this optimum right now is that optimum actually achievable maybe not probably not but at least I know what tradeoffs I'm making that's all it is when we were working the constitution together I said this repeated It's just a I called it a Chinese menu.
Put in place the government you want.
Just know what what the cost and the costs and benefits are. My argument in general was that putting in place a parasitic government is not good for you. And it turns out to be true. So um uh all governments will become parasitic but they'll some are more parasitic than others. So that's my basic that's the basic argument. So I don't >> argument for a king just have one parasite so to get rid of other parasites.
>> Okay fine. If you can manage it with a king do that. I mean I've said it's the perfect government consists of a monarchy and a republic and limited part political participation. I've said that repeatedly. Why? Because it's the greatest means of calculating. Right.
All right. So so I I don't want to get I feel like we're getting lost in this again. I mean, I I love to talk to you this Martin, but it's always comes down to the same thing is that is that I I'm arguing for a general science and you're arguing for particular applications. I think that's fine. It's just I don't think that has anything to do with criticizing what I'm actually putting in place. And so when I and when I get a and when I get a question like this from somebody who's obviously using colloial terminology to refer to colloquial ideas um it's not referring to the science that we you that I've produced. And so it's okay if he wants to think that morals mean positivas that's fine. If he wants to think natural law means positivas that's fine. But if you read our work my work the natural law is a negativa. Um and morals are morals in any civilization are um either good morals or bad morals or good ethics or bad moral ethics as as they serve the population. In your case, I think what you're saying is because I hear this all the time is that we have adopted Christian universalism because or in the first place during uh in our history and it was wrong and we've adopted we've expressed Christian universalism at international scale in the post-war period and I agree with you those things are wrong. On the other hand, that's not this that's different from saying um we actually suppressed the capacity for war by uh the the the desire for and capacity for war by radically dragging mankind out of the agrarian era and into the industrial era and ra rad radically lifted mankind out of poverty. You can't argue with that strategy. You just can't. Well, that's admitting that you're undermining other groups if you're undermining their capacity for war.
>> They're undermine their capacity. You're undermining their in in their desire for it.
>> Maybe they >> and you can undermine. You just said it yourself. I'm happy to undermine other groups. That's what you started out with. That's your whole argument is you can undermine I'm happy to undermine other groups if other groups are going to cause me harm. I'll happily do it easily if What about my allies? I happily undermine other >> Why don't we happily undermine happily undermine uh Russia, uh Iran, and China right now? We should happily undermine >> those are those are not real threats.
>> You don't think they're real threats?
>> No.
>> I can't can't go anywhere that.
>> All right. So, have we killed this one, >> Francis? Mhm.
>> I think whether we killed it or not, I think that we we've you guys have already moved on from the original question and then it keeps on getting devolved into this uh like the broken record track.
>> Yeah.
>> Right. So, we're not going anywhere with this.
>> Let's go forward.
>> Okay. Sounds good to me.
Let's see. Oh, well, next one. Question four. police deliberate birthright citizenship and later on there's another question similar to it.
>> Yeah, >> I'm not sure what there is left to say.
It's just one of those things where the line between malevolence and stupidity is completely burl especially where female judges are concerned. I don't have much hope for America. If you need some technical argument, Brandon has made those on stop subst. Do you know that Brandon argues from the original intent of 14th amendment and treats that as legitimate probably for optics and mainstream acceptability?
I don't know. But I'd reject even that as against the intent of founding fathers, Linkon, almost anyone fighting on either side because lots of Union soldiers just wanted black corn and obviously completely against national interests. again, zero tolerance for universalism.
>> I've written a lot about this and um I don't think you can do better than uh Brandon's legal argument is correct. I don't think you can do better than the 90 pages that um Judge um Thomas wrote on it. Um the um the the Supreme Court was wrong in their ruling which is on our amicus brief to the court.
>> The estro the estrogen part of the court was wrong.
>> What >> the estrogen filled part of the court >> the estrogen of the court was wrong. Um and uh what I my understanding is they punted because uh they don't want the court to be responsible for what should be a legislative matter. That's my understanding it. It was cowardice on the part of the court. Fine.
They handled the abortion issue and maybe they're scared now to handle another one. Um there is no argument here at all. You you you're the when you say you're a citizen what does that mean? It means two things uh inter one thing internally and one thing externally. Externally it means your ins the state is an insurer of last resort of you primarily against other states. That's what it means.
So you're being insured by the state the the the state infrastructure the state uh bureaucracy the state institutions and the people in the state against harm by others who uh by others that's what a citizen means number one uh number two is that you are um you are you have uh adopted the group strategy of the population right of the the the group. So to become a citizen means that you are now a member of and of the shareholder agreement called constitution. Um and all that implies in the population. Uh I like to talk about I use Francis as an example of somebody who's more American than most Americans. Um uh uh the third part is that if you do though if you are insured and if you ensure others by maintaining the group the group strategy you know the group contract that uh you have a voice in what to say. Um it's this universal infranchisement uh is two are two different things. So, uh, >> you can be a citizen and be insured and you can be a citizen insured and, um, and, um, having allegiance to this group and its interests, right? You will not work against the demonstrated interests of the people who are your peers.
And the third is that if you have sufficient ability, you may participate in the governance of it. That's the three pieces that this is this is a problem on on each level. Um if you uh if you are being insured, that's great. What are the criteria for insurance? It's the capacity to at least the first thing which is to um uh reinforce this the sharehold agreement with the rest of the poly and then this this and if you are you demonstrate enough competency to participate in the governance of it.
Demonstrated confidence is only obtained by one meth method which is your demonstrated ability to carry responsibility for more than yourself and the family. That's really that it you have the capacity to carry responsibility beyond it. So um in essence if you have uh you have an allegiance higher to some other polity than this one you might be insured but you're not a citizen. In other words, you're not a member of the polity and you because you're not advancing the polity exclusively interested and you should have no say in government. The question is well you should have any public speech at all. So uh I don't think birthright citizen is even a difficult question. I think mostly it's a difficult question uh for the court because it doesn't want to be responsible for making the decision. It wants it to be legislative.
My view is the court is uh being cowardly because it's impossible to get legislation through our government.
And so they're basically punting it down the road and saying we're going to leave stuff as it is until the temperature increases enough that we can change it.
Um I think Judge Thomas and the people who dissented were correct and that the estrogen on the court as usual is wrong.
Um, which is part of my uh my this is another example of my belief that it does not appear we can use women on the court. I just looked it up I guess unfairly uh called an estrogen court because uh apparently both uh Roberts and uh what's his name? Kavanaaugh also uh struck down the order.
>> Have you measured their estrogen?
Nope, I've not.
>> So remember, there are there are multiple reasons why the members of the court would not want to engage in this.
I am pretty sure from Robert's standpoint, it's that he doesn't want his court because he's the chief justice to be hit with this. Um uh he he they overturned the abortion thing, but they're afraid to touch this one. The reason is if they do this, there are a lot of people who are going to be upset um about it and so they they think it's going to be it'll turn into an attack on the court. I know Kavanaaugh is thinking well enough to know I'm sure that he went along with Roberts for that reason.
Um but in the end the the guy who's if they had had numbers on the court they would have gone for it. but without numbers on the court. They didn't want to have a split decision on something that would be this disruptive. They want to punt it over to the legislature. That's my understanding of it. But there's no case here for birthright citizenship. There is case for um if your parents have both been citizens and they right they're citizens and they are citizens in good standing then obviously you can be granted citizenship. But I think in our constitutional reforms, you can be a resident before you're a citizen and a citizen is an is basically an oath, right? Um and uh and um you have to earn citizenship. That's how we basically look at >> Well, I remember when I um pro remember this is more than quarter century ago.
When I swore in to become a US citizen, there was a that there's a swear in uh ceremony of which one of them is to defend swear to uphold and defend the constitution. And I think it was Eli who wrote an article once about the nature of a political system in that it's essentially maintained by violence >> and therefore it okay I'm I'm going to try to construct the chain of logic and I want you to poke holes in right so because a polity a A nation essentially is a special in the sense that I understand it. A nation state is a territory where the polity has exclusive rights to enforce the laws of that land.
And in order to enforce laws, you need the application of violence.
I'm going to if you want me to clarify or no.
>> Oh, go ahead.
>> I just said if we're using the term nation state that directly implies polity is all members of one nation, >> right? So there's there's there's the there's the state and there's the nation state. So what you are saying is a state uh uh is an insurer with a monopoly on the use of violence.
>> Correct. I think >> right a nation state is an ethnos a group of people with shared interest a nation right uh who are who create the state rather than a heterogeneous or multinational you know multinational state.
Um and so there's the so you have the the the state issue which is monopoly and violence and you have the nation state which is the territory the state uh enacted by a group of people with basically common interests. Okay. Okay.
Go ahead. So, so since the state to maintain its legitimacy has that monopoly of violence otherwise we end up with cycles of feuds and so on and violence is violence essentially the is the currency of rights all of them then does it make sense for anyone to be a citizen in that state who either cannot not or will not be a member of the what do you call it military the the militia or the >> right let's just call it militia right because military also has the implication of expedited army which >> so so following that logic >> able body >> instead of birth right instead of birth right citizenship >> which is just like far beyond the pale like do women even get to become citizen?
Because citizenship here to me means that you actually get to vote on what laws are enforced in this state as a law of the land. And if you don't have the ability or the willingness to enforce that law, then why should you have a vote?
>> I, if I recall correctly, in ancient Athens, women did have citizenship, but that obviously didn't translate into any sort of political power. It just meant that their children could be citizens if the father was citizen as well.
So in this case, citizenship and the ability to vote are two separate concepts. Even though in modern day United States, these are mixed into one.
>> These are mixed together when they are not the same thing.
So, so basically if the government, the state is has a monopoly on violence because it is the insurer of last resort if you cannot I'm I'm going to tune this right. If you cannot or will not e use violence in the defense of those of the assets of the community then um you are not in fact an insurer of the community.
the the counter example to this and I'm not sure it's wrong is that there are there are um multiple levels of assets and so we are it is not false that women defend certain assets in the polity which is generally behavior counter to the polity.
If women are holding >> you're saying that we need currents.
>> No, no, no. We're saying that we need uh what is it? We need slush. We need to bring we need to make slushing great again instead of being [ __ ] >> pretty much >> instead of slot promoting.
>> Right. So, so basically there is the ability to demonstrate whether a woman whether a woman or women are actually ensuring acting as insurers of the commons or not and it's basically behavioral. The problem is that two two things have to happen before women will behave that way. They have to have the cognitive load of children and usually more than three right on number one and they have to be old enough so that the estrogen is being directed toward the children instead of elsewhere because they are want to use their they want to care for that which it needs to be disciplined rather than cared for. Um, so the the the the net result is about a third of women are really capable of it. And it's hard to make even that argument. Partly because around 40% of women are actually mentally unstable.
So our problem is that it's not clear that all but a tiny fraction of women who demonstrate responsibility and agency and decidability and insurance. It's not clear that they can ever have political assertion if they have social assertion.
And we're getting to the end point here.
This was actually women's argument against women entering the franchise before women were giving the franchise.
We control society and they control men control the polity and the economy and the military, right? But we control the family and society. If we don't do that, who will? And if we are tempted by that other thing, who will do this? So there it wasn't that a lot of women didn't understand their power.
Um it's that they didn't un they uh they they understood also that this power corrupts and that women would be corrupted by the power of of the franchise. So I'm not I'm not sure that we can't have women as citizens. Um, uh, I think it should be something you earn, but I mean, if you've got a bunch of kids and, um, you are controlling the GSSRMS, uh, then I'm not sure why that isn't bad. But does that convey voting rights or does that convey status, right? I think those are two different things. Yeah, I think we >> we need to rewrite the constitution such that citizenship does not necessarily mean you carry right to vote.
>> That's correct.
>> Being a citizen, >> it can >> it means you're Go ahead. Go ahead.
>> It can certainly mean some privileges and access to state services that mere residents don't get.
>> Yes.
>> Because you're you're ensuring Other words, in other words, you can benefit, you can benefit from the insurance policy provided by the state. Doesn't mean that you get to write the policy.
>> That's correct.
>> So, that appears to be the correct answer if we want to look at the data.
Um uh unfortunately uh I love women but I do not like given where my generation started from and where we are now. It's really [ __ ] depressing.
It's really depressing.
>> You cannot >> because I grew up >> what >> you can love women as what they are.
>> That's right. last generations have tried to loving them as something they're not.
>> Something they're not. Thank you, Lord.
And it's exasperating. Um I don't know how we make this happen because it's not like they're going to like it.
Um, and it's not like the people who want to build the sedicious undermining of the west or any culture want don't want to want to lose the fact that they can use women to do this stuff because women are gullible and and gullible.
So whatever I, you know, it's like if I had told me when I was 30 or 25, hell, 18, what I'm saying right now, I would have thought it was horrible. Um, but now I we've just got the I can't argue with it. I can't argue with it at all. Look what happened in just a hundred years.
Jesus Christ. [ __ ] disaster.
Yeah, I I don't think women are responsible for that. They were just used as one of the excuses to enable it.
>> Yeah, I'll argue, you know, they're a resource, right?
Yeah.
>> Yes, >> you're right.
>> They were used. That's useful. It is >> it's the whole the Abrahamic method whether in the that whether in the religious model the well whether the female method whether in the female behavior the Abrahamic method in the religion or the Marxist method in in the pseudocience it's always the same thing you like bait the suckers into the hazard so that we can control them it's [ __ ] annoying.
All right, what's next?
>> All right, well these next few questions will be interesting. Um, question five. What would be the optimal form of government for the Germans?
>> I feel like Moritz should answer this one.
Well, I'll give a general answer to this and the next two questions that I don't see myself as qualified to determine every particular for nations which I am not a member of within which I have not resided and besides Germans haven't even visited. But in general terms, almost every nation on earth right now would benefit from their state being less liberal, from eliminating its oligarchy capture, and from a sincerely nationalistic leader restoring order.
Chinese system, while not without flaws, is closer to this than the rest.
>> Yeah, I wouldn't buy that. They're talking about their oligarchic system over there. Jesus Christ.
>> Yeah, but do you know how? Of course, but their their oligarchy is restrained.
They can't outright work against interests of the nation entirely like they can in the West.
>> No. No. You're crazy.
>> You are so wrong about that. You know how cut tocrapic that system is. How much you know how much wealth only she and his family alone plus, you know, not to mention the the rest of the political bureau they have uh that they have stolen for themselves.
There's difference between being parasitic and being treasonous. Do you see them having assets in the west like Russian? Really?
>> All their assets are freaking hell in the west. What are you talking about?
>> Okay, then I was wrong.
>> And they take their children, their most valuable asset, and send them to the west.
>> The only the only guy in the permanent what is it? The standing military committee who didn't have his children in the west is General which who has now disappeared for you know six months now and apparently that just quiet down no and nobody knew what happened to him probably >> but then even China needs a harsher dictator apparently.
Okay. So, I'm gonna form a Mau look that that how that landed the Chinese where that landed the >> Chinese.
>> Okay. So, so here's what I have called perfect government and I stand by it. Um uh you need to the the the government the problem of government is what where's my population's distribution?
If my population's distribution down here, I need more authority. And if I my population is up here, I need more more co-op, more uh deliberation, right? So if in a perfect world, you would get the rule of law across that, you would have a monarchy as the insur as the uh judge of last resort.
Right? A judge of last resort cannot say do something. It can say you may not do something. in particular it can throw the bug the bums out. So the monarch's job is the restoration of rule of law, right? To uh the monarchy is outside the law in the restoration of the law.
>> Above the law only in the restoration of the law >> above the law.
>> I have an issue with this because if the power is limited only to death, then who's actually deciding when it's appropriate to act?
if not the monarch itself >> because it's his this is the problem of monarchies Martin as everybody's so well known um in other words it's off discussed throughout history the problem of monarchies is you cannot possess enough knowledge to make those decisions what you can do is possess enough knowledge to know these [ __ ] are corrupt or this is not working it's hurting my people and I'm going to throw the bums out and start them I see the confusion here. Absolute monarchy doesn't imply that monarch is constantly meddling in every decision made in his country. It means that he has a power to if he needs to. But he's if he's intelligent, he'll delegate decisions to those who can be responsible.
>> I agree. So I'm going to go through it.
Right. given the problem of the limited ability of monarchs. We have had great kings and we have had [ __ ] ones, right?
Uh throughout history, right? That's the problem is the same thing as the as the bad emperor problem in China, >> right?
>> It's not quite the same problem as a bad emperor problem. The king's power is limited >> in the western at least in the British sense. It's not absolute monarchy, right? Even even throughout western history absolute >> it's it wasn't absolute because he wasn't able to enforce every whim not because there were laws written some >> that's not true >> no no that's not true in the west mon kings were limited by traditional law and that's what the They were because they were held in their position.
>> Those traditions didn't emerge in a vacuum.
>> That's was the the law that's always that was always the case. What happened was when the the kings wanted absolute monarchy and they could rarely get it and they could rarely get it because nobody wanted them to have it. So uh so uh and uh so the I'm going to go back to the solution which is uh monarchy rule of law monarchy as a judge of last resort.
um a cabinet that does most of the work, which I think is what Martin actually would like if it was the reason with you get a cabinet rather than a monarchy is that the individual monarch doesn't have to have a whole lot of uh whatever he has to have be able to hire a staff to manage the the government uh and and the people as much as possible. In history, the government in the west that you called a parliament parliament, which is the same thing as um two parties coming together to have a to negotiate a conflict and war, right? That's what it means. So if I'm going to I'm going to bring the parties together and >> it's a parlay, right? And so you have a parliament only to raise money.
In other words, you have to get the pe the the parliament's uh permission to raise money. Why? Because they're the people they pay that pay it. So your job is to convince them that the that there this money is going to go to good cause, right? So so the the what one of the choices we have is that we could limit all right parliaments to that actual function.
The second we could have is that we could limit the parliaments to some scope which would be trade for example or those kind of things right but we wouldn't let parliament invent legislation right we would not right because this is gets to this gets to Martin's concern u which is uh the subsidiarity is that local groups should determine what's normative for them, right? And uh the the state of the the regional government above them should resolve uh investment differences between them. In other words, to try try to handle invest and the state should handle investments across all of them. Right? So we want to have local control but we need to have a way of re resolving disputes and making investments. So the question is what is it that governments do that they actually should do versus what they shouldn't do and it seems to be governments do a lot of what they shouldn't do right legislatures whereas what about whereas the second problem becomes where do we invest our money is that better done at the legislative level which is we're corrupted as [ __ ] or is that done at the cabinet level how do we determine where to make investments ments with capital investments because as we've seen with fascism the state is much better at organizing large amounts of capital in the common interest than the private sector is whereas the private sector is much better at organiz organizing capital and the service of the private sector. So we have public sector organization of capital and private sector organization of capital. What happens in the fascist government is that they prefer everything benefit the commons over the individual the individual uh private firms. um this turns out to be really effective if in this case of China for example you you put you allow six companies to develop but once they develop and they've got market share you decide to unify those three companies under states financing and sponsorship and now they become world dominant because they're not fighting each other they're fighting for world dominance.
So there's a this this structure appears to be the optimum. It actually mirrors what monarchies did in the past. Is that your job if you could get the monarchy to be an investor, right? Or you could get the the nobility or aristocracy local to be an investor, you could overcome the capital limits of your group and reaching far additional markets.
And so it's not like this stuff is unknown. The problem we have is that the uh the uh French Revolution, the American Revolution and and the Democratic Revolution in general um was was better good in the sense that it brought the middle class into and trade into what had been a originally a fixed a fixed benefit of agrarianism. Um so it could scale. Uh but then what happened was we brought the lower classes in which allowed the communist and to do what they did in Rome with the slave population which is to sell them false promises of power under the new uh rules of universal infranchisement.
So I don't think it's rocket science to figure out what the perfect government is. It's basically that spectrum that I just described um with more authority centralized for simpler polities and more distribution more more infranchisement for more involved polities. But if you but you have to demonstrate responsibility in order to have say I mean I don't I don't think that's that complicated. So that's what I call perfect government is adaptive.
The rule of law is the constant but adaptive monarchy up to republic as um monarchy up to uh fascism up to republic as the spectrum with what it looks like fascism being the oppos the optimum because it's the optimum means of al of limiting people's ability to do harm to each other maximizing investment in the commons which produc a maximizing return for all. I I think Martin in my mind that's what you want. Um but I think the difference is is that um I don't have faith in individuals to make very good decisions and I think they're corruptable and I think that when I hear you talk I interpret it as you're putting more too too much faith in individuals. That's all.
>> I'm putting faith in one individual rather than into many.
Yeah. And I don't think that plays out very well in history.
>> So I don't see fascism and monarchy as necessarily different things. Just make the dictator hereditary and you have a monarchy, >> right? But you're saying that he has competency and there's they don't you can't say that, >> right? Because otherwise because they end up with a bad emperor problem, >> too much power, >> course. But you don't even have a chance at good leadership if you don't have a monarchy.
>> It always ends up as some sort of race to the bottom.
>> So can we move on to what's the optimum for the Germans or is that the question we're asking?
>> Oh, that's the question that we're answer that we're answering. The next one I've answer. Okay, >> let's see.
>> I mean, Kurt, if you have some specifically something specifically for the Germans, but it's sounds like we're >> they need they need a monarchy.
>> They need a monarchy. America needs a monarchy. We need a monarchy. European countries need a monarchy. I would if you look at the countries around the world, those that have monarchies, it's better than to believe in an individual as a point of point of last resort than it is to some [ __ ] ideology or process or procedure, right? Uh it's, you know, the great thing about monarchs is you can kill them, right? And replace them. They know that and they don't want to get killed. And so they uh tend to take better care of their population than politicians do. It's the same thing as renters versus owners. You know, Hop has been out that forever. He says the the what do you call it the um the democracy is the god that failed.
>> Well I mean it's not just democracy it's basically um the republic ex the republic when it's extended to populations beyond those who are responsible for the responsible uh ends up being uh catastrophic and it's does nothing except gen generates opportunity for capture right and so you know capture and corruption. The thing about a monarchy is if they have enough money that they're they're they're safe no matter what. Their whole thing is to just stay in stay in their position. If somebody gets out of hand and tries to seize power, they basically kill them.
And that's what we want. Um >> as far as I can see, there's no monarchy left in Europe. Symbolic monarchy is not a monarchy.
>> I I agree with you. But the monarchy's position is they're um uh waiting out this foolish experiment.
>> Then they're useless. I'm sorry.
>> Well, they are useless, but that's whose fault is it? Theirs or ours? It's ours.
>> Well, they used to have the power to do something about it and they didn't. And now they're >> they didn't have the power to do something about it. That's the problem.
after World War I, they did not have the power to do something about it and it became increasing before that.
>> All right, I want to move on. Francis, what is the optimum formal government of the true Chinese?
>> Yeah. So, question six, what would be the optimal formal government for the Chinese? So, I when I saw this question, I couldn't help but to answer it. Uh, so as much as I like as much as I dislike saying this, but I think the optimal form of government for the Chinese is probably something akin to what they have now. An authoritarian sellism confusionism that packages Chinese evolution strategy into a statebacked religion, a network protocol in quotes of sorts that organizes individuals in that society. The optimal form of government must conform to the people it governs and the Chinese people are forged by the geography they're placed.
On the continent was a fertile heartland capable of supporting large population bracketed on the east by an island chain of different and sometimes hostile peoples on the west by oceans quote again quotes of plateau desert and steplands that traditionally spawn barbarian raiders tundras to the north and impassible jungles of the south. The Chinese ruling elites have learned through history both those opportunities and dangers associated with open trade along its coastal provinces of western lands bordering the barbarians and difficulty by which to organically move capital from the rich coastal regions to develop their inner provinces. So they developed a central government bureaucracy to forcefully redistribute resources in order to keep the internal peace. Until that geography changes or some technological advances that completely negates the geography the Chinese will keep returning to the form of government that work in the past i.e their stable state. Change geography.
Say had the Chinese colonized North America, we'll colonize this new planet in the future. And we'll have a very different conversation or poke holes in it.
>> There's no [ __ ] holes to poke in.
I mean, it's flawless. Martin will poke some holes in it.
>> I think he would agree with it.
I mean, I already said what I think needs to happen. Get rid of the oligarch most of all >> and keep someone in place who can keep getting rid of them or keep them in line.
>> There's no I feel bad because I want to comment on it because I want to show acknowledge the value of it, but I mean it's right. I mean the the the the um the it's it's not it's not so India is covered by mountains over the top and water on these sides has got some problem guys over here. Right.
Right. The United States has got rivers on both sides. Right. Um, uh, China, Europe has like this this peninsula, but it's got problem troublemakers to the east if you go far enough, which is the middle, which is the Muslims. And then if you're China, you've got this sort of coastal thing that's [ __ ] awesome.
And you've got this interior and then the you're bounded by pieces there. And then those [ __ ] troublemakers that go that bother us that come from the east and they bother them that come from the west. you know, it makes perfect sense.
So the from the Chinese perspective, the way to maintain stability is that given given it's almost like, you know, America has the east coast and that it it's really beautiful into the Mississippi River Delta, right? You on the other side of that and it's a [ __ ] desert, >> right? Until you get until you get to the other side of the Rocky Mountains, right? And so what if those those desert those Rocky Mountains were the were were the other side of that was a bunch of barbarians, right? we we would do have the same problem in America.
>> Um and so China's basically saying, "Okay, so the way we would look at it is the way Americans looked at it is we don't want those [ __ ] Europeans in here causing more [ __ ] trouble. Let's just take the whole continent." Well, that's the same thing that China did.
They said, "We don't want those [ __ ] troublemakers in here." Um the problem is we've got this [ __ ] north different the Han north we've got the south resource P pool and we've got the interior and we've got these mountains and we need to keep those [ __ ] out and we need to keep these people engaged right I mean it's just it just seems like a simple obvious problem geograph the Chinese realized that problem as early as probably end of chqing dynasty and Han for certainly by the Han dynasty I guess what these I think it's the second or third emperor tun what he did he he throughout his entire reign right he waged wars mostly wars wars expeditionary wars to the west to chase the huns >> and basically genocided the huns using a scorch earth policy that force the hunts to migrate west that caused problem for Roman empires >> exactly so so so there's nothing particularly so there's Nothing strange about the Chinese model any more than there is about the American model. It's the same [ __ ] problem, right? You Americans want to keep the warlike Europeans out and the the Chinese want to keep the Huns and before them I don't know who was there, right?
>> The Huns, it's just like different races of barbarians.
>> Barbarians coming in. It's the same [ __ ] problem. So So the the difference is that uh that America's got an ocean on the other side. So if you get there, you're safe, right? So Americans did that.
>> The Chinese is never safe because you can still >> It's difficult. It's difficult to cross a desert, but it's not impossible. Like you can still walk across it. It's not like you can swim in the Pacific Ocean.
>> Of course, it is true until you open the borders.
>> Yes.
>> Right. Well, that's a different problem.
So, so Chinese government makes just as much sense as um American government. In other words, uh it's just that you have two different histories and a more diverse set of people. Americans brought in a whole bunch of Europeans who were were basically um uh the population had driven to the point where they had they had occupied all the available land and they were constrained by the productivity available to the land. So opening up the Americas created a bunch of land for them. Great. Great. But so there was a reserve population that can be brought over. In the case of China, there's a population there already, right? But they have troublemakers among that population and decent people among the population. Get rid of the troublemakers. Keep the decent people.
Make sure all the bad guys stay away.
Now we can just govern this. If we govern everybody well enough, right, we can keep out the [ __ ] troublemakers, right? I mean, is that the simple way to think about it? Right. Um so the the diff the major difference is is that America was founded as a as a during the age of sale as a trade network and uh China was founded on the gray river systems principle and so you had great river systems meant centralization um the United States meant just a reiteration of what would happening in Europe uh which is not a river system it's a trade system right so uh and decentralized government so these things make perfect sense Um the the my the problem for the Chinese as obviously the one Francis brought up is communism was the wrong [ __ ] answer.
Um and when they already had the right answer, they just needed modernization.
Um and and that it was that simple. and they've achieved that modernization, but they're still carrying the after effects of the communism um and uh with the communist ideology or bureaucracy when they could have just say, "Well, we're going to go the fascist model and that's just what works for us." Because in the in given the variation in the economic and uh uh the economic distribution of productivity of the lands uh we need to be able to have control over enough capital investment to distribute it enough to keep everybody happy.
>> Yeah.
>> Duh.
>> I think especially to keep the western provinces happy because those are the borderlands. They're poor as [ __ ] You can't really produce anything there and their only use is to keep the barbarians out.
>> That's right.
>> If they're unhappy and actually, you know, pitch their lot was the barbarians, then the hardland's [ __ ] >> right? So, so other my thing with about the the about this government in China is simply Mao's expansionism when they have [ __ ] had the world in their goddamn oyster.
>> Expansionism.
>> Yeah. Did I did I say ma? Mal Mald Mald II basically [ __ ] although our our friends our friend Bering gave Mis >> so so so that's that's really otherwise they make perfect sense I mean India makes perfect sense uh the only one doesn't make sense is Islam or the only unless you think about is they have to the only way they compete is to drag everybody down to their level which is probably what makes sense for Islam >> um but everybody There were plenty of secular dictators, but those were inconvenient to Israel, so they're gone.
>> Well, I mean, that's just chieftains, right? That's just chief Arab chieftains. They're just chieftains, whether you call >> chieftan Assad, Chieftan Gaddafi.
>> Yeah, they're chieftains, right? I mean, that's what they are.
>> Okay.
>> That's what they were.
the problem that we what most people don't realize is the um the spread of Islam was driven by the problem of chieftains. Now Islam was eventually was thought of as a mean by which to get control of the corruption of the chieftains um the chieftains um uh and it it turned out to be really effective actually. So uh it was more effective mostly because Persia and Europe had been in a war that they decimated each other so that they created a power vacuum but to for these idiots to roll into but in any event.
>> All right. So we answer so we answer the Chinese issue.
>> We didn't answer Chinese issue. I don't know if you have any um words to say about the optimum form of government for for the French but um and likely that's going to be a longer question. Uh but I do want to skip one and talk about number eight which is police deliberate since it's very close to the question we just answered. Please deliberate Supreme Court 63 ruling on birth right citizenship. Is there a realistic chance of getting legitimate legitimately overturned and what are the realistic consequences of this if not overturned?
>> Well, uh I have a hard time thinking it won't be overturned.
Um, >> I'm thinking it won't be.
>> In other words, I would assume it's going to be overturned. I would assume that birthright citizenship gets overturned. I don't know how or when, but I'm almost positive it's going to get overturned.
Um, usually you have things like this when there's a massive crisis. We're going to have a massive crisis here.
um either either domestically originated or globally originated. Sometime in the next what's what year is today? 6 30 35 sometime in the next eight years nine years some say eight years. Yes, probably eight years we're going to have some confilgration happen. It's only after those confilgrations that things like this can be implemented. And in fact, I think that's our our goal is to make sure that there are uh solutions that can be implemented when that time comes. I don't uh I I I would think that if um if this I would think that if this next election, not this one, but the what next one after that? Not the this November.
>> 30. Oh. Oh, you mean uh the the 28th election? Yeah, I would think that that goes the conservative way. There's a chance during those four years that will be there's going to be too much pressure. They really punted this and they shouldn't have um because I think there's going to be uh even more pressure uh in the future.
So, um I expect it will get overturned, but I think that the problem is that it needs to there needs to be an alternative implementation rather than just overturning it. If you overturn it, it leaves uh it leaves a uh a chaos behind. If you enact a legislation reforming it that allows you to um propose a solution that fixes the problem and um does not create utter chaos and conflict. Hold on. When you say to overturn the ruling, >> does that So if they overturn this ruling, then that brings the 14th amendment into question again. So does have to the 14th amendment into question again?
>> I don't think it brings the 14th amendment in question. I think what it brings into question is what we've all known which is what was the intention of the 14th amendment >> versus what is the words of the 14th amendment and I think that's the problem so um yeah the the p the purpose of the 14th amendment as and this provision within it is to make sure that slaves were not you know treated badly right that was that was the first um this was the understanding for a while and fortunately that it evolved into a habit so that there a lot of people in the country who um would be affected by this. Right. Right. For example, uh it's not uncommon to do this. Right. Uh uh Haiti uh which was the most recent example um withdrew citizenship from from the people who had come over from the Dominican Republic because they were a [ __ ] problem and they sent them all home, right?
>> You mean the other way around, right?
Yeah, the other way around.
>> Did I do it the other way around? Did I just do that?
>> Cuz a freaking [ __ ] >> Look, I I I woke up at at 2 in the morning with an idea that I had to work on and I I was working stuff.
>> I understand. You're You're a scissor.
>> I I don't look very good. That's cuz I'm tired. Um so I made a mistake. I have it backwards. It's the Dominican Republic revoked Haitian citizenship. There's no reason we can't do that. There's no reason at all why we can't do that. Um, and there's no reason why we can't deport the people that are here that shouldn't be. Um, the there's especially no reason for it because we are not in a position where we have um what's happened is that that labor is actually decreasing labor prices and there's a tendency in America to want to favor consumer prices over that. The problem with American consumer prices, especially in food and that kind of thing, is not the labor cost. It's actually the intermediary, the intermediaries costs, which is why the prices aren't coming down after the co.
So, I don't see why this is not fixable.
You're talking about probabilities though. My view is we're going to have a civil war if we don't fix this problem.
And if we and there are it is actually relatively easy to solve this problem.
I'm actually surprised at the level of difficulty the administration's had. I don't know what the the numbers are. In other words, how well I is doing, but they're at least out of the news.
But if they could get rid of the people that shouldn't be here, I don't know why that would be a terrible problem.
>> The big deal for us is >> different. That's a different problem than the one I answer at hand, right?
This first question, isn't it?
>> It seems to me the answer to all these questions, it would be easy to solve if our guys ruled, but they don't.
>> All right. So um anyway uh so anyway so uh it really dep a lot hinges on is it 28 the 28 elections? Yeah the 28 elections if we're able to retain uh power for another four years. I think it's possible to make enough progress. I think if there's a reversal at that point which given the way the Democratic party is going I don't know. um uh uh if there's a reversal of that point, there will be an outlandishly overzealous reaction by them that will that will definitely lead us to to conflict.
Um >> well there's one problem your line of argument which is the as you said when we one answer last question related to this uh chief justice Roberts essentially kicked the can down the road >> yes >> and since supreme court justice for life even 28 is only two years I doubt that I'll see that they will see him or some of the other justices willing, especially not the liberal ones, willing.
>> You're making it's the it's not the court that's the issue. It's the court isn't the issue. The legislature is the issue.
>> But to overturn this, you need Don't you need to >> No, you don't. No, you don't. The court the court has to follow the law. The court issued a ruling based on the law.
If the legislature makes the law, the court will adhere to it. That's what it has to do.
And so the the problem is that when the court had, this is what I said a few minutes ago. If the court had overturned it, it would have led to chaos because the court doesn't propose a remedy. The court got >> right. The legislature can propose a remedy and the court can uphold the remedy. Right. So the the it's you know it was a nice attempt by this by the administration to try to move this through. But the real answer is is that we need um uh we need to hold enough of Congress to get through um the legislation to change this. The court won't un undermine it. I mean, if they did, they'd be hung um uh and they'd be terribly wrong.
>> So, the administration tried to put the administration pushes as pushes policy centralized the executive order which can be over which can be overtuned by the next president. And the court essentially kicked us down the road saying, "Hey, rather than us trying to legislate from the bench, we need Congress to actually legislate to put a permanent fix to this problem, >> right?
>> Because otherwise, if the court say rip it off or something, then uh without something to replace it, it'll be chaos."
>> Correct. that it's it's not you know um so my view is that that uh we the problem is we need a we need to um have we need to have enough power to get that through the legislature and it's very hard to do right now because I mean you see what we're getting in the legislature anyway um it's the election is the the 2828 is looking good so far you can't look at approval numbers right now they don't mean much. They're mostly related to the war in Iran and >> the economy and the news crap, whatever.
>> So it it what when you look at the Democrat side, they they got nobody.
>> They have nobody. They have nobody. They have nobody. They'll try to pull an Obama out of the hat like they did with Obama. They'll try to find that. Um there might be somebody. It's just hard to see it. Um, I don't think you could pull a second Obama out. I don't think that would happen again. Um, uh, but I don't think there's anybody out there.
And I think there's the the the uh, what is it with fatigue? The word fatigue. I think fatigue is a real thing. And I think we're done. I think there's a there there's a fat fatigue. So, but you the there's different. There's a lot of very angry liberals who are very a lot of angry women um who are [ __ ] crazy and want you know and think that they can uh bring peace to the world through submission. Um so but that's not going to happen. So I don't I don't really know. It's very hard to tell.
>> All right. Uh there's a lot of people who want democratic socialism, which is seems like kind of communism, but it's anti-white.
But they still wanted as a response to where neoliberalism has brought us to nobody being able to afford basics like housing.
I see this as a fate, but a lot of people believe it.
Well, they may want it. Can they get someone into positional power as well as the uh legislature into position get their people flip okay flip enough of legislature and also have the executive on their side to pass a law >> I don't know I can't predict the whole future >> I think it's unlikely All right. In any case, I think we've done it all justice.
>> Let me see what I got here.
>> All right. So, do we do our Do we do our Do we do our >> We did our duty.
>> All right. This is Martin. You ready to shut it down?
>> Yes.
>> This is Martin Francis and Kurt Doolittle for the Natural Institute.
This has been our office hours uh Q&A for Wednesday, July 22nd, 2026. We got through how many? Eight questions.
>> Uh seven more.
>> Seven questions. That's not too bad. If you want to leave a question, put it in the uh >> Francis link to the form in the description.
>> Link for description.
>> Yes, it's I put it in the description every new live stream.
>> All right. And for those of you who are stay with us, those of you who left some good questions, we love you. Thank you very much for your participation. You guys have a great one.
See you.
Related Videos
4:12
Political Science
COP27- Jagan Chapagain, Secretary General of the IFRC
AfDBGroup
104 views•2022-11-10
5:08
Political Science
The ABC spends a day on the campaign trail with WA Opposition leader Shane Love | ABC News
abcnewsaustralia
2K views•2025-02-24
10:10
Political Science
S. Jaishankar Says India Facing Challenges of Terrorism Amid Rising Security Concerns
newsxlive
678 views•2025-05-09
1:00:00
Political Science
Mayor addresses decrease in violent crime in 2024
WMAR2news
237 views•2025-01-07
1:45:09
Political Science
Strengthening Human Rights Through Youth Engagement
NationalEndowmentforDemocracy
306 views•2019-12-10
0:56
Political Science
Jeremy Corbyn speaking at event organised by the independent group of Bradford
Overseastimesnews
286 views•2026-04-22
23:06
Political Science
LIVE: Trump to Non-Citizens, "Register in 30 Days or Get Deported" | Firstpost America | N18G
Firstpost
3K views•2025-04-14
25:16
Political Science
Day 809 - Saudi prince tells ToI Israel needs to start being 'normal'
TimesofIsrael
4K views•2025-12-23
Trending
13:25
Business
Playstation NO DISC/NO BUY Fight Is Over...
DavidJaffeGames
4K views•2026-07-23
22:40
Business
Steam and Xbox Just Dropped The Hammer On PlayStation
OhNoItsAlexx
9K views•2026-07-23
16:52
Anthropology
Americans Confused in Australia for 17 Minutes Straight
IWrocker
17K views•2026-07-23
20:36
Business
SuperBike Factory Has Gone... What's Next for the Motorcycle Industry?
thatbikersimon
11K views•2026-07-22