Politics Video Transcript
Welcome to Truly Right View Socialism
Let The Truth Be Told!
Are you ready to hear the real truth unfiltered by bias media or government intervention?
Subscribe to the Truly Right View YouTube Channel
Subscribe to the Truly Right View Rumble Channel
thank you for having me um it’s a pleasure to talk to you I thought I would speak for about 25 minutes on citizenship I I wrote a book on uh a his more on the historical side the end of everything about wise civilizations uh are annihilated in war and that’s not usual but I I thought this might be more timely given the election um why citizenship is dying and uh I think just as a preamble you know with forget the politics of the the election on Tuesday but it does seem that in American political history that the side that can appeal most or can be perceived most addressing issues that pertain to the welfare of the middle class upward Mobility when I know that when the Republican party uh during the cane Romney years was caricatured as not sensitive to the wishes of the middle class than they lost and then that was the true of the the same thing with the McGovern Carter years and then there was a reaction with Reagan and what we saw on Tuesday was a perception that the that the opposition had an agenda that was more of a boutique agenda in other words it didn’t address some of the needs of the middle class and when either party is successful they tend to double down on their base or their emotional issues and forget what got them elected which brings up why we’re uh uh that we’re in political turmoil and I thought what I do is look at about six or seven things historically that created the middle class and and are essential to citizenship and why they’re in question now one of I think everybody realizes that if you read classical history one of the Great Signs of civilization was a move away from tribalism and that and the introduction to thus City’s history says in earlier times people were migratory and they identified by tribe and if you read Solon about Solon the lawgiver that was a great contribution of Athenian democracy that people gave up their primary affiliation to of people who were in their neighborhood or related to them their Clan or their tribe to a larger Commonwealth that was kind of what the ideal of the Melting Pot was versus the salad bowl and other words and that was the dream of Martin Luther King that would be we we would pledge our allegiance to the content of our character not the color of our skin but I I think the Paradigm has been lost the Paradigm was this that we like people coming from different cultures different races different religions to Adorn uh the body politic in terms of fashion food uh music uh cultural aspects but we don’t tamper with the core as outlined in the Constitution and and the amendment process in other words we’re a mraic society we’re a constitutional Society we have after a long struggle civil rights um legislation that protects the Integrity of the system and not tribalism but over the last 20 years I think we’ve evolved to where people are beginning to identify and self-segregate by their superficial appearance uh birds of a feather flock together that term actually comes from Plato’s laws where Socrates says well you know all old people only like to be with old people and they’re like birds of different species that that only congregate and uh this it it tends to be one of the most controversial of all anti-citizenship uh developments that people now will identify in the most extreme and ridiculous cases you have people like award Churchill or Elizabeth Warren that try to suggest that they’re Native American u high cheekbones or beads but there is a perception that if you emphasize your tribal affiliation then you will get uh government or private benefits and um in the past when there was institutional institutionalized racism say in the Confederate South if we had something called the 116th drop rule I was noticing a high-profile case in Hollywood not long ago where a person claimed in an interracial marriage the children should go to her because she was evoking the 116th rule that the child in question was 1/8 black and if it was more than 116th she had a better claim to Parenthood but in general uh this idea of racial essence or Purity is antithetical to a pluralistic society and just because uh in the past we aired on the side we were there was institutionalized racism I don’t think the Cure of it is reparatory racism and that’s what we don’t use that word but it’s basically judging a person by their superficial appearance and one of the things we saw in the election whether it’s genuine or contrived is there’s a effort I never thought as a person who grew up in a democratic family that the Republican Party would try to substitute class solidarity for racial essentialism but when you saw the record number of minorities that were voting alongside the middle class whatever you think of the particular politics there was a sense that uh maybe just maybe people’s tribal affiliation will not be accentuated it’s very important because historically uh large countries that are uh constitutional and uh if they tend to accentuate racial categories or cast uh and you can see that in India it’s a large democracy so is Brazil those are the only two large multi-racial democracies I think maybe Indonesia and when they do that they don’t function as well is the United States and one reason I think we function pretty well is at least traditionally we did believe in the ing pot and that after two or three generations it was kind of irrelevant or we really didn’t know what anybody was I think uh so that’s something to watch when you you have a ret tribalization of a society it’s anti-citizenship another thing is important is the premacy of the middle class and uh in Greece we had this term for it called the meso the middle people in Marxist binary sometimes it’s dismissed but if you have a viable middle class in the majority of the people uh there’s a lot of classical and Renaissance Enlightenment literature that explains why the middle class is important and it’s it comes uh down to that unlike the poor they’re not dependent on government or wealthy individuals and therefore they have a auton what the Greeks called Aon autonomia Alara an economic or political self-sufficiency and they don’t become clients of wealthy individuals or the of the government and therefore they’re freeth thinkers they’re very important they don’t go and uh involve themselves in politics too much they have to be e economically self-sufficient to be politically free and unlike the wealthy they don’t have the ability to influence government backdoor deals insiders uh special concessions so just in a practical sense it’s good to have a large as large a middle class as can unfortunately if you look at barometers of middle class viability uh before 2017 and the last they had not had a gain in income in 12 years it went up a little bit into before covid and you can start to see it in indicators of uh government dependency of the middle class we had 1.8 trillion dollar in student loans um that’s still out on the books the average age of marriage in America’s gone from about 25 to 29 the age of children first child has gone from 27 to 30 uh as as recent as about 1998 I think we had about 2.0 2.1 fertility rate it’s down to European levels about 1.6 and the average American dies with $10,000 in credit debt with negative uh net worth and so um that was an issue in this last Campaign which side could better convince the other that it had incentives to create and empower the middle class and that every good thing comes from that politically you have a stable Common Sense uh check on the wealthy and check on uh the poor as well and there’s not a glorification of the poor sometimes happens and uh sometimes you see in history this strange uh medievalism of a two-class society where the wealthy then have uh skip over a dwindling or or skeptical of a middle class almost as if they’re in the attic and they want the trapo to be shut no one can come up and join them and they form allegiances uh allegiances with poor people on the idea they will subsidize them or patronize them or keep them poor but the middle class historically has been a threat uh to to the wealthy above all that’s something to keep our eye on as well as the ret tribalization those are traditional enemies of successful citizenship Victor can I ask a clarification question or should I wait yeah yeah when you said the average American dies with 10,000 in credit card debt is that the average literally or the medium the mean I’m sorry the mean yeah it’s the mean not the med okay good okay thanks yeah and then the other question I is is the you have to be very careful historically when you conflate residency with citizenship we used to be able to identify why a person would want to be a citizen there were particular rights and responsibility that were exclusive to them uh those are mostly vanished uh there were about six or seven things that say 50 years ago a citizen enjoyed exclusively one of them was the right to vote of course as you know in Schoolboard elections in Berkeley Cambridge Massachusetts people who are not citizens are voting there’s a lot of initiatives to allow non-citizens to vote another issue was non citizens neither could hold political office nor could they participate in a campaign Christopher steel for example was on the payroll of the DNC just to take one example he was a British subject very involved in the 2016 campaign we have people uh for both parties that from Europe that come over and want to enlist in campaigning activities for either the left or the right even though that’s supposedly against the law only citizens can do that another exclusivity of citizens is they used to be uh for a brief period only people in the military now we we of course you don’t have to be a cant to be in the military you have to be a citizen to go back and forth across uh a border you are given um a passport maybe with Canada and Mexico there’s some kind of relaxation I was reminded of me I flew home from uh France on after leading a tour this summer and a person on the plane did not have their passport I guess they lost it somewhere and they were he said he lost it in the seat of his plane and immediately he was ahead of me they ushered him into another room and when I left he was still in that room in other words there they were trying to devise some way of verifying that he had a passport but when you have 12 million people coming across the border without a passport without a background check and going back and forth um then youve really destroyed the idea that only citizens have this right to choose when they’re going to leave and and come into a country which is important we have a program with uh A1 immigration where you can get an app and come in the United States and as you know some some uh programs are flying people in from different countries without passport control and without uh legal background checks and that’s happening at for example at the Fresno Airport I came in on a delayed flight and there must be 7 or 800 people arriving each night on four or five flights from Mexico and uh that’s a special program that the administration is used that kind of bypasses the idea that you have to have a Visa or a passport or a green card we’ve never been in this situation either where a state like California has 27% of the population uh that was not born in the United States that can be very good if they’re legal and they have a green card but if a large percentage is not then the process of integration assimilation intermarriage is kind of slowed down uh we also have we’re in a great experiment kind of nonchalantly we have now 16% of the population which is about 55 million people were not born in the United States of various statuses a large majority the majority of them are here under illegal aaces we’ve never done that before so the process of assimilating people who come uh in Mass it it it’s very difficult to do generally immigration worked in the United States because except for periods of a decade or two with the Irish or the Italians or Eastern Europeans usually we uh immigration was diverse it came in uh manageable numbers and there was a it was mostly legal and the people came with some skills not all but that made assimilation and integration much easier but when you have 55 million people and 16% of the population and you have Enclave that makes it much more difficult to assimilate especially if we the host doesn’t really believe in assimilation and doesn’t feel that we’re enriched just on the core but the very essence of the American experiment might be changed as well and that would be considered a good thing you can really see it when um Ronald Reagan signed the Simpson maoli Act of 1986 that offered a blanket amnesty for I think it was two and a half million people who had been here illegally what was rarely remarked on I think only about 35% chose to exercise that amnesty in terms of path way of citizenships in other words they were issued a green card and they were happy with that and I I live in a community that’s about 95% Hispanic probably 40% people have suggested are here illegally and when you talk about people of an older generation and I try to do this a lot were you amnestied under Simpson moli and they say yes and then the next question is did you apply for citizenship they said no and the next question is why didn’t you and they said there was no no definable benefit that they could see their children under an interpretation of amendments to the Constitution would be citizens if they were born to parents here illegally and they didn’t see anything they couldn’t do uh that a citizen couldn’t do so it was for them it was just a kind of a headache to go through the process there’s other things I would I would call this challenge of tribalism or the peasantry the the rise of peasantry in in exchange for middle class or the idea of the conflation of residency versus citizenship it’s kind of a premodern uh phenomenon it happens in pre-state societies where people come and go there’s no defined borders uh there is no autonomous landowning legally protected middle class and people are onore whether a person is a citizen or resident they can’t see any advantage to to either status kind of like in the Roman Empire when Caracol in 212 gave Mass citizenship partly because the number of people in the provinces the Roman Empire he did it for tax purposes to collect taxes but there was a larger number of people who were not official Roman citizens and it was unworkable and so in a kind of a blanket amnesty he thought that he could incorporate everybody but that really didn’t solve the problem of bringing different people different languages different ethnicities and not being able to inculcate them assimilate them and integrate them in the tradition of Italian agrarianism and Roman republicanism of a lost age there is though another move on the other end of the spectrum to diminish citizenship I’d call that the postmodern effort not the premodern natural phenomenon that this is more of a contrived deliberate effort one of them is uh I would call them the evolutionaries The evolutionary movement they feel that human nature Chang es uh maybe technology or diet or improved material conditions and that we’re just different people that we’re not this we don’t embrace the tragic view that human nation is constant against time and space and therefore they feel the Constitution is aifi calcified even the amendment process of requiring two-thirds of Congress and 3/4 of the states is too clumsy and laborious and therefore they want to make radical changes the Constitution to to change the essence of americanism you can see it with the effort of the national voter popular compact in other words they feel they don’t really look at the arguments for the Electoral College I’ll be happy to make them uh as glean from The Federalist Papers and other contemporary documents of the signing but they understand they don’t have they the evolutionaries don’t have the number of votes necessary to do that so they’ve gone to each of the individual State legislatures and said would you pass a law it must be unconstitutional that says you will reflect the national vote and not your state total and now we’re only 61 votes short in other words 18 states have signed that compact it’s kind of ironic that nobody wants to jump the gun until they get 270 in other words New York or Illinois or California on Tuesday didn’t say you know what we signed the national voter compact therefore we’re not going to pledge our electors to Donald Trump uh excuse me we’re not going to pledge them to uh camela Harris because she didn’t win the national vote Donald Trump did so we’re going to nullify the California Illinois or New York voting but that’s what the national compact says but apparently it won’t take place until they get the next 61 votes and get around outlawing or destroying the Electoral College another thing is um we’ve had a filibuster you can read the arguments about it it’s been widely discussed for about 180 years it came in the 1820s 1830s and the idea was consistent with a bamal legislature that the states would be represented qua states in the Senate even though the founders first they were appointed Senators by the legislature but then by the popular vote and the idea was this would be sort of like the upper gusa and Sparta or the Senate room and they would slow down the tribal assemblies or the Assemblies of in This House of Representatives so if you had a popular uh fad or movement you would have time to digest it in the Senate because these people would represent were representatives of an entire State not just members of uh the people that their representation in the Grassroots sense would happen in the house and therefore California for example it’s about 20 million people of us we have one Senator per 20 million and Wyoming has about 250,000 we get angry about that but it’s consistent with the idea of the Constitution that Wyoming is an entity That’s Unique in particular and deserves repes and it of course it goes back to selling the constitution in part to States rather than just to Residents and that is under attack so the idea of senators should be popularly elected that’s a very popular Topic in law reviews for example as is getting rid of the Senate filibuster and usually what happens in America the minority party whether Republican or Democrat but more often Democrat because they they are more evolutionary believes that the Custer is onfair Barack Obama for example said it was a racist uh relic of Jim Crow but when that party becomes and he actually uh he said that when he was in the majority and of course when he was in the minority he filibustered out the Alo nomination so now we have a told that we have to have the Senate filibuster I have a feeling I not that that I’m skeptical but on January 20th there will be no more talk of ending the filibuster the other thing was um packing the court it used to be kind of shameful the 1937 uh Court reorganization Act of FDR his own party stopped it they felt that it was a blatant manipulation to stop um the new opposition to the New Deal and from then on it was kind of a disgrace now it’s very popular and we had Chuck Schumer for example saying that they wanted to have 15 justices and they wanted to have mandatory ethics investigations and requirements and they wanted to have term limits but again the problem with these evolutionary movements they tend to be short-term and partisan we haven’t had anything other than a nine-person uh Supreme Court since 1869 for particular reasons and that was that prior to 1869 about every other Administration tried to pack the court and bring people of their political persuasion by adding to the court rather than persuasion of justices or something but we have seen um I don’t think again after January 20th there will be any movement in the next four years to pack the court and if there is not a movement to continue to pack the court then I think it illustrates the fact that the proposal was misguided and was partisan um finally we’ve had a 50 state union for uh 60 years and it kind of was a a practice it was when it was possible two states were often admitted getting back to the 1830s and contentious years of slave non-slave uh states to under the guise of the Great Compromise or Missouri Compromise as well and that was sort of the idea if you go back and look at the debate over Hawaii and Alaska 1960 that Alaska was considered a conservative State and Hawaii was considered a liberal State neither party would benefit but there’s been a lot of calls to bring in Puerto Rico and uh amend the Constitution so that Washington DC would not have its special Federal status but would actually be a state and therefore you would have four Senators immediately of one party again that’s an evolutionary idea and you can see where that’s going to lead that there would be a movement if that were to happen to break up States you can make the argument that California above Napa Valley and in the Sierra is a very distinct political culture I I live in Fresno County where I’m speaking and Fresno County actually voted for Trump and so did Larry County so did Kings County um so if you were divide California that would be a blatant political move to have two states and give two get two extra Senators who would be uh conservative e either party would do that so there is some value than slowing things down and respecting uh a 50 state unit these are just a few examples of what I think are threats to citizenship and that is changing the system and I don’t mean just the Constitution but long accepted protocols and often they’re necessary and that’s why we have an amendment process such as the 18-year-old Vote or civil rights action or suffrage but these uh quick ideas to change something that has worked and try to avoid the normal process of of amendments very dangerous another thing we have a threat to citizenship is I I would call them the unelected we have about 3 million people who are in some way working for the Federal government more with state government and we are creating vast uh bureaucracies off often geographically uh fixated fixed between New York and Washington that uh operate as I guess I could use the crew term judge jury and executioner by that I mean they have legislative judicial and executive power and often they have mastered the intricacies of their bureaucracy and they have enormous resources in the judicial system paid lawyers Etc that um they act without uh legislative intent I’ll give you just two examples from practical and I discuss these more in the book but from practical experience I don’t know if you knew but the the Obscure idea of making raisins from grapes the raisin industry there’s about 5,000 growers in the depression the price got down to $25 a ton so the government came in and regulated the supply of raisins and they did that by saying that they own they passed a law saying that they owned the grapes on the vine and so if you were a farmer and you cut your own grapes and then you dried them on the ground and you made them into raisins you didn’t own those raisins the government came in and said to you you’re required and that’s still the law you have to bring them to an authorized rais and Packer store them and then a government investigator or auditor will look how many tons they are that are in the industry at these various yards then they will adjudicate what they think the market in the United States can handle and they will declare it free tonnage maybe 60% and you will only be paid on that 60% you cannot withhold your reserve tonnage the reserve tonnage then will be made into Brandy or cattle feed or given to food for peace or given overseas and usually for pennies on the dollar and that way the market is artificially kept at a high price we’ve had a lot of uh entrepreneurial Farmers who’ve challenged that and they have been slapped down broke um the government has come in confiscated their crops uh ruled that the national raisin Act of 1937 was constitutional and it’s still being adjudicated another example just one very quickly is the inland waterways act the Congress passed a law that said that the government shall have the right to and make sure that our natural inland waterways are free of excessive Les levels of nitrogen it was a well intended law so that people who uh lived on the shores of major rivers uh would not fertilize in a uh a reckless Manner and then Reigns would bring the nitrogen content of these innerstate interstate is what I I’m trying to emphasize Waterway so the federal government could adjudicate the the the high levels of nitrogen but the people who passed that law became experts in it in the Environmental Protection Agency and the California state so now they have decided that if you have a depression on your property and after a rain that Pond can be an interstate Waterway interstate and literally where I’m speaking I have neighbors that have very uh and I have a pond on my farm as well but the government has the right to come in after a rain or after several rains go onto your private property and take a sample even though that was not the intent of the wall there’s no commercial value of that water body it’s not a navigable body but they have and who interpret of that the bureaucracy itself did and then when if you try to oppose it they have unlimited judicial resources and everybody that I know who’s challenged that has failed because of the ability of cherry-picking Judges again it’s an example of people who are not elected um I’ll give you one more example whatever your views are on the FBI it is strange that the former um director of the FBI Robert Mueller testified under oath to the Senate the house intelligence committee that the two reasons the two catalysts for his special appointment were the information in the steel dossier and the information that was transmitted about that dossier through Fusion glim Simpson and Fusion GPS he testified under oath he had no idea um what the steel dossier was or what Fusion GPS that’s demonstrably imp possible and yet he testified under oath his successor James Comey was asked similar questions about the dossier and the FBI’s involvement in both Hillary Clinton’s case and Donald Trump’s he said under oath 245 times he could not remember the next successive interm FBI director was Andrew mccab he admitted that he lied on four separate occasions under oath to Federal investigators and of course the the the final one was Christopher Ray when he was asked directly what why did the FBI have possession of Hunter Biden’s laptop for over a year and had already adjudicated it to be authentic why wasn’t that information released when it was a bone of contention right before the 2020 election and more gerain why did 11 FBI agents work with social medias particularly Facebook and Twitter to suppress news accounts and not allow them to be trafficked on these social websites that correctly had uh diagnosed that the laptop was genuine just an example if you have four directors of the FBI and they feel with impunity they can lie under oath you’ve got and there’s no redress because of their position and the doj so it’s another argument that the concentration of government power tends to conflate Judiciary executive and legislative power in unelected people’s hands finally uh there’s this challenge a postmodern challenge of citizenship is is cosmopolitanism that’s a fancy word in from Greek that you’re a polites of the COS Cosmos you’re a citizen of the world rather a citizen of a particular country uh that term I think the first time it comes up is reference to Socrates well after I think it was in di diogenes leres or some somewhere like that where Socrates is reportedly saying I’m not an Athenian I’m a citizen of the world and it was it tends to be an elite fixation that uh you have evolved to a certain point that you’re no longer parochial and involves a lot of corollaries you don’t really believe in a a sovereign border you believe that the southern border really doesn’t really exist it’s a 19th century construct because people are people and they should have a right to go wherever they want and after all we have no more allegiance to the United States and we do to the World At Large you can see it manifested um say in Davos a lot of people in Davos uh passed a resolution not too long ago that they want they were very critical of Ireland because Ireland had offered uh corporate incentives at a lower rate than other EU countries and the the people at D had really lobbied the EU to stop that in other words that the citizens of Ireland should not have sovereignty over their own um tax policies and protocols but they should subject that to an international body or more gerly the EU itself we saw that during the Afghan war where there were people in the international criminal court who suggested that if you were an officer in Afghanistan that you would be subject to international criminal penalties if you ordered say an artillery strike that hit civilians or you saw the internet ational Criminal Court threatening to bring to Justice uh members of the Israeli government in Gaza you saw that after the George Floyd um Riot and destruction when members of the United Nations Commission on uh human rights which at one time uh had as members North Korea Iran Venezuela I think Venezuela still was Cuba and they thought they were asked by secretary blinkin to come in the United States and investigate uh charges that we were vict guilty of systemic racism we saw it with a Paris climate Accords which was a treaty but we bypassed that treaty and we were basically rendering our sovereignty to this International group that would adjudicate to what degree uh we had met or missed our carbon emission reduction standards but it’s it’s very dangerous because it assumes that the more people you have or the more people from different count countries therefore there’s some innate wisdom or there’s a superior morality when you look at the 1888 nations in in the world and I think you can make the argument the United States Constitution is the oldest of all constitutional societies and it guarantees the greatest protection of freedom and liberty and to somehow Outsource uh the application of uh Freedom as defined economically socially culturally politically to a non-elected international body it doesn’t seem to be it really strikes at the heart of citizenship so in conclusion I I thought I would suggest that the citizen as we know it today is under assault by historic forces of uh non-integration tribalism identification with the natural impulses of all of us to be seek of with people who look like we are worship like we are rather than to give give our primary allegiance to a more abstract Commonwealth we’re we have to be very careful that we’re we’re not turning into a binary Society I think California is one of the reasons people are leaving in droves 270,000 a year is it’s deemed to be increasingly a med medieval Society where 21% of the population lives below the PO poverty line the highest actually more than Appalachia uh one out of every three people on federal assistance live in California and then we have the highest number of billionaires and the wealthiest zip code per capita at the same time but not so much in terms of power gasoline prices of electricity power housing they’re not conducive to a vibrant and large middle class and then finally um there is a trend the United States to diminish the exclusive I ity of citizenship to the point now I think in a state like California which has the highest number of foreign born we have no idea how many people are citizens or not citizens but more importantly we don’t seem to care we don’t think uh either we the host of people who come to our country should demand people become citizen or become legally and more importantly the people here who are not citizens are not convinced by their host that there’s any substantial difference from being a legal or illegal resident and a citizen they don’t see the value or the effort to become a citizen because the traditional Privileges and responsibilities of citizenship have been so diminished and with that I’ll open it up to questions thank you thank you very much Victor that was very interesting we have a few questions and I would like to ask the participants to try to be concise so I expect there to be a lot of questions so if you can ask your question question concisely I would appreciate it so Rick is the first and then deot and then David um thank you very much you’ve covered an enormous amount of territory and raised a lot of very deep and significant questions I guess I’m trying to get a picture of where pluralism fits into your conception cultural and religious pluralism for example um and when I think of the modern nation state they come in different kinds when I think of Europe it seems to me they’ve accommodated tribalism by creating ethnonational entities in which citizenship is swed Sweden for the swedes and Denmark for the Danes and Hungary for the hungarians so you basically end up having a relatively homogeneous population sharing cultural values conceptions of family life of gender of authority and religion and so forth so that simply creates recreates tribalism seems to me by having an ethn National entity and redefining citizenship that way in a Civic National U environment like the United States where let’s say constitutional patriotism and what is what defines you as a citizen or as is what it means to be an American an enormous amount of room is given by having a relatively weak notion of what’s implied by citizenship so Divided We Stand is what J Thomas Jefferson invokes when it comes to religion we don’t require that if you’re a citizen here’s the religion you should have or here’s the particular set of beliefs you should have and in that case it seems to me room is being made for tribalism um the conception I hear you putting out is basically a world of the state and individuals with all of the intermediary organizations that allow a ethical tradition to be have thickness to it and be carried forward and so where is the room for pluralism in your conception well I think I think you might have misinterpreted what I said uh what I was talking about was within the parameters of citizenship people have certain rights and responsibilities and if you don’t have most of your residents as Citizens and they feel they’re not subject because of their tribal affiliations to the common laws and statutes protocols traditions of the country then you almost get a parthe side so if you have people for example who come from the Middle East and they feel they feel more comfortable by becoming green card holders and they feel that in their Community it’s perfectly fine to voice um anti-semitic activity or to shun People based on their religion and you you feel that they have a separate Community or that child marriage I’m not picking on any particular group but they have separate protocols and characteristics and traditions that are not subject to the majority and they’re a separate resident community and they should be immune from the requires of responsibilities and citizenship then you’re kind of creating an apartheid Society you see that in Europe you mentioned Europe but anybody who goes as you know to reram or Paris and the outer buroughs or almost Sweden you see an entire subset of the population that are not citizens but they’re resident aliens and there are districts where the where ethn you’re right about the ethnol state but the ethn state is defined by we don’t we don’t have the ability or the desire or the capability to assimilate these immigrants into the body politic of being French or being Dutch or being Swedish and therefore we’re going to set aside almost like reservations where they can live and have a separate existence on the Hope or the expectation that the sheer power of popular culture will by osmosis eventually by the third generation turn them into by language and culture into a swed or a Parisian or a Dutch and that’s not been that so you want to reject the the image that was once there of the United States as a World Federation of Nations is what something you would reject you don’t want there to be birds of a feather flocking together having their right of Association also imply a right to dis associate from others you want it’s a matter yeah it’s a matter of degree so that’s I agree with that but I mean yeah I mean the large how weak can the citizenship be and still satisfy your notion of the ideal Society you know it’s a matter of degree and it’s a matter of uh interpretation I mean when you had uh 7 million Germans that were speaking German and not English and they demanded in the Civil War the Union Army have General seagull because he was German and Lincoln did that then you’re getting to the Border where it’s it’s it’s problematic if you if you have large groups of people who are not speaking the dominant language and they have not assimilated or curated to the protocols of the United States and they have very little in common at least for a couple of generations with the the majority population and they are told or they’re instructed in classes that that’s a good thing that tribalism is a good thing in a multi-racial Multicultural Society it it’s not going to be viable it’s not well the F the fir final point I don’t I’ll go on to let others go but I mean I I thought it was rather fascinating I’m told that the First Co published copy of the Declaration of Independence was in a German speaking newspaper in Philadelphia and a huge part of the population involved were German speakers at that time um I mean we and we don’t have a national language that’s one of the things that’s actually interesting about the United States we don’t have a federally declared language we allow a lot of diversity with regards to language but there was the expectation that that phenomenon would last two or three generations at most maybe it still will but we have we’re starting to see multigeneration and the difference in in those times were from the beginning to Teddy Roosevelt who was a spoke about it commonly from the bully pulpit that was not a viable idea that you were going to bring in different groups of people in the United States and they would form permanent enclaves where they would have their own language and their own allegiances first to their own culture and their own politics and they would vote perpetually and uniformly the idea was that these were all going to be temporary phenomenon that would be broken down by the government and also by popular culture again it’s not infringing on the person’s right of dress fashion music food but it was the idea that as a Civic matter they would fully accept the protocols of being an American as rapidly as possible that was whatever those whatever those might be whatever whatever how thin do you want them to be how how numerous are well I’m sorry I don’t want to take up more time those M questions okay thank you next question yeah I I approve of the of the comments of my of my old friend Rick and I don’t much approve of yours I must say that’s fine I I will wonder why to be sort of fundamental about it why assimilation is such a grand idea um and and furthermore in a kind of smaller way I wonder why the present uh configuration of things called countries is the optimal scale for this thing you call a commonwealth it seems to me actually that the very notion of a commonwealth causes the kind of absurd um um uh regulations about the about about making making raisins that you properly um attack uh and if if such commonwealths are a grand ideal why shouldn’t I don’t know Massachusetts be a commonwealth and have have have tariffs and and citizenship checks and so forth it seems accidental that uh don’t think it was at all I think that was the genius of the founders they understood exactly what you’re talking about and so they had the grand compromise under federalism that each state would have particular rights and responsibilities that they would not be given up in the Constitution especially the Bill of Rights that all all powers would be reserved to the state they have would they would have unique cultures within the state but their primary allegiancy would be to the federal government and anytime that that was challenged on nullification the government was I think in the right South Carolina decided that tariffs over the Tariff question that federal law would not apply and the Civil during the southern state said and we’re starting to see by the way that nullification of com commonwealths already this we have 600 jurisdictions right now that says the federal government does not have a right I think it’s unconstitutional to go into a particular jurisdiction and detain uh a person who violates Federal immigration law or the criminal code and Deport them the problem with this is that’s an evolutionary concept so you have people now that are talking in Utah and say well if you have Sanctuary jurisdictions 600 of them we don’t really believe the federal government has a right to tell us that we can’t go into a store and buy a revolver Utah has no problem with that so we’re going to nullify federal law then you have people in Wyoming who say you know what I’m building a development and the federal government has come in and says they have a federal Endangered Species Act and there’s a two-spotted toad on my lot and I’m the the government of Wyoming has no problem with that so I’m going to destroy this crazy noot or lizard and build my building and the government has said no when state laws contravene federal laws the federal law predominates at least as matter between interstate commerce and things so and that’s a very good system because it vents what you’re talking about local control State Control uh fear of a the tyranny of a federal government but for purposes of National Defense or interstate commerce we’ve had 237 years of compromise and it’s worked pretty well and anytime anybody’s tried to air on one side of the other and I try to give examples of an overweening federal government CIA FBI or an overwhelming state government it doesn’t work very well and one of the things that holds us all together is when we have immigrants and people of different religious religions and different ethnic groups we have said to them if you want to speak at home in your language that enriches you that’s Wonder but for for practical purposes we need a Common Language maybe we haven’t done it by Statute but we always tried to make sure that people spoke a Common Language they had a common culture they had a common tradition and therefore they could interrelate to people as Americans rather than as swedes or Californians or people from Massachusetts I think the system works well because it’s the longest surviving constitutional system in the world today I don’t want to be assimilated well you are assimilated if you know it or not you’re speaking a language that most people speak and I haven’t the first thing you didn’t say as a English woman or as a swed or as a German my students at Cal State Fresno uh would say to me I don’t really want to talk about The Iliad because as a Latino it doesn’t it’s not Germain to me and I would say it’s Germain to anybody who’s human I agree yeah yeah so I don’t think we you haven’t self-identified by your ethnic group you haven’t said to me as a Christian you haven’t you’re not speaking German to me so I think you’re pretty well assimilated to the body politic thank you uh me David yeah yeah thanks Victor uh two interesting historical things and you can correct me if I’m wrong yeah but the Hawaii Alaska thing was the exact opposite apparently at the time Alaska was Democratic and Hawaii was Republican and so they brought him in that way yeah the second thing more serious about history before I get to my real question my understanding is the reason one main reason they went to the elector College was they wanted to kind of re in the power of Virginia which was kind of like the California of the time is that correct the power of what I didn’t hear that last word the power of Virginia Virginia kind of the the California of its time that was a that was a that was one of the reasons uh that wasn’t official that was a subtext but the official reason at least is there outlined in The Federalist Papers were things that we really don’t appreciate one of them was they felt felt that they were worried about ballot integrity and uh they felt that if people in Washington were able to fit fix a national ballot they could swing an election but where they had the Electoral College there were so many states that it was very hard to in a conspiratorial fashion get control of all these sort of indiv Highly eccentric individual states on the same page that was one thing and they have it in the Constitution bading shall be the prime AR responsibility of the state except from time to time the federal government could step in and that’s things like the suffre the other thing they felt was um and Jefferson said that of course he was a big that there were certain value of rural people that 95% of people at the time were Rural and they were looking at increasing urban populations in Boston Philadelphia New York and they felt that they were developing a culture that was at odds with the people who fought in the revolution and more importantly they felt there were certain things that made the United States go besides Commerce and that was things like a food agriculture Timber Mining and that those uh those representatives of those Industries and those activities were very important and if they didn’t have the Electoral College then candidates would go into the cities alone and they get a false picture and I guess translated into modern terms uh we wouldn’t I I I think we’ve all noticed especially recently with the red blue State when we watch election turns Tuesday night it was very hard to find the popular vote they didn’t even list it they just looked looked at individual states and candidates were going to Pennsylvania they were going to Arizona they were going uh to Michigan they weren’t going to California they weren’t going I felt kind of underrepresented as of rural California but my State uh I think if we did not have the Electoral College you would basically be campaigning in Los Angeles San Francisco Houston uh New York Chicago and you would get a very different view of very important livelihoods and Pursuits of what makes up this diverse country right so my real my question I want to get to yeah um and it’s not a gotcha but I’m trying to explore the limits of what you said yeah so you were very much against the ICC the international criminal court yeah and I get it I get you know I get it but we did have the nurg court after World War II now those were extreme compared to what we’re talking about now so may so I’m trying to just figure out is that first of all would you favor would you have favored the nberg court yeah and if so would you say there could be circumstances under which we’d want the ICC well got to remember that uh the League of Nations had become defunct its documents were in suspension and they would be handed over to what would become the United Nations but there was not there were the Allies they called them the United Nations those were the Allies but there wasn’t a formal as happened at San Francisco foundation so that was not an international court that was a court of the winners and it it it suffered from the same criticism after the Versailles Treaty of 1919 when everybody came Wilson and everybody and Clemens so David Lord George they came into Versailles in January they didn’t finish till July and they decided the war guilt clause they decided as winners what the indemnity would be and reparations and all of that and after that occurrence actually if you look at what the nerenberg court was about and the Allies activity of occupying Germany it was often reaction to the versil treaty and but in a critical fashion they felt that the Versailles treaty had done the worst of both things they had lectured to people from kind of a multi-national perspective but they had been weak in enforcing it they said to themselves we’re going to occupy Germany we’re going to say that they were culpable and we’re going to try people and we’re going to enforce it and we ended up dividing Germany and whether you and that was part of it what I’m trying to say is trying particular people in the German government especially did I agree with all of it no because there were people in the German military that are reprehensible but there were a few that General wart and others were not war criminal uh I don’t know what would have happened to they didn’t some of them didn’t engaged with operation Valkyrie and staenberg but they did oppose Hitler and they were not in positions Where They carried out uh commas Sol orders of executing Jews or they still were culpable fighting for a terrible cause but when you have Soviet justices and that happened sentencing some of these people to death when they were responsible for killing over 20,000 police officers in the caon forest or 20 million people in the great Terror it was very problematic but by and large when you look back at the nerur trials and you look at the architects of the Holocaust or the the people who really ProMag the 65 million people who died in World War II they did a lot better job than I I than they than than you would think at the outset uh some of the things they did to Japanese generals um that conquer General h and Y yashima they were very Fierce tough guys and their people died but they weren’t quite and we hung them I mean Tojo was a bad guy so he he tried to kill himself we went in and had emergency surgery saved his life from severe stomach wounds let him recuperate for six months and then tried him and hung him and so you wouldn’t principal be against an international criminal court the question is the use of it yes I think what would say is if you want a international criminal court you would have to have some requisites for membership and that would mean that your country have to have a a constitutional system and then like it I think what I’m trying to get out rather clumsily is something like the Geneva uh Accords on behavior in war and you those were really founded in the U 1920s after World War I and the idea was the democracies their constitutional government would consider this was barbaric and you couldn’t use poison gas and they actually kind of worked except for the Japanese nobody used uh poison gas on a wide scale in during World War II I think that was a good thing but uh if if you had that would be good for the I think of the 180 something Nations we only have half of them are democracies or constitutional system so you had these absurdities where they come in to New York and then they vote for the first and only time in their life their vote voting on a consensual system and they’re they’re trying to exercise sovereignty over constitutional States even though they’re not from constitutional States and they don’t believe in constitutional States so Iran should never be a member of the Human Rights Commission right okay thank you yeah John C uh J uh Jan Burke I’m here sorry you’re here okay John sorry I I had to unmute myself um this was great um you you combine three elements and um sometimes combining gives Grand View but sometimes it makes each element more fragile because if the other elements don’t hold up um when disre so as I see you combined a for the American middle class um a a stunning denunciation of the authoritarian Pro uh properties of our current left-wing administrative State and then a uh a sense of um a whole business about immigration uh tied together with sort of the duties and rights of citizenship but uh along with a bunch of other things so um as as the the uh administrative State taking over and becoming authoritarian I could not agree with you more the critic of the middle class I’m um I’m a little more doubtful of so just you cited some facts which I’ll disagree with yeah um earnings uh may not be up wages are up why because people of lower incomes in the US don’t work uh the uh labor force participation rate of the lowest quintile is 30% um now you painted a picture of they have become addicted to social programs marginal tax rate is 100% once you get involved in Social programs so I’m not that does not seem like a lack of jobs um until the inflation came along the wages available to people who wish to work have risen quite well in the US and they’re way better than they are in all of Europe for example so um I think there’s a problem with the lower class not quite so clear that the middle class is suffering economically as much as you pay and the second small one I’ll disagree with this you said um a number one thing that a nation must do is control its borders and have passports we didn’t have passports before 1900 so you certainly want um to fight crime but that doesn’t necessarily mean having a National Database of everybody who comes in and goes in the borders uh you want National Security but again that that um NE doesn’t necessarily involve the borders most people coming in are coming in because they want to well either visit or they want to work hard pay taxes and uh bail out our welfare state so I think one can have a slightly gentler view of of the necessity let me just start yeah the last one is you do the question of the nation state and its sanctity is a delicate one the US has a we are a a Melting Pot when we’ve been successful um mostly and here I’ll Echo a little bit Dedra um the most these states are based on ethnic uh and cultural uh divisions as as you pointed out but Sweden isn’t for the swedes and Denmark for the Dan they’re all part of the European Union and this did not work out so great in Europe from about 1100 to about to the birth of the European Union uh States based on ethnic tribal religious identity tend to have big Wars against each other and I think it’s it’s something of our of our special nature that we have a state based on a national identity but not the kinds of things like India Pakistan or or or internal identities like as you mentioned uh India or Lebanon not not so organizing people around those principles doesn’t seem like a great idea so there’s the three yeah I don’t think you understood my last one I was arguing against that that I was suggesting that a national identity that transferred a tribal loyalty to a shared identity of people who were of different races different religions and um different superficial appearances and having that share and not emphasizing tribal differences made the United States successful and that we don’t want to go back to a tribalization one of the things the founders as you know said that they were very worried about the North American continent because they felt that if the states were to fragment then the Paradigm they used was uh the local cultures and religions and ethnicities of Europe which was about the same size as North America but it had 30 different countries and they said that would be a prescription for Perpetual war that was used against the Civil War in particular so I was arguing maybe I wasn’t clear about it that we do not want separate Thoms of people congregating by these affinities of race or ethnic background or particular languages without sharing a common a common identity that’s National as far as the middle class I think I’m not sure what your argument was about the poor but I think when you look at the symptoms of the middle class uh and correct me if I’m wrong I think there had been a stagnation in middle class wages until 2017 for 12 years at least that was what was championed by the Congressional tax reduction act 201 um 17 and then when you do look at the symptoms about home ownership it’s gone down a little bit it hasn’t it hasn’t gone up as everybody had forecast if you look at the size of families they’ve gone down if you look at the marriage rate they’ve gone down if you look at the student loan uh obligations it’s gone up so you get the impression that this generation I know that’s stereotyped in the media but you do get the impression that the average American not the wealthy or the poor has more difficulty rather than less buying a home feels maybe wrongly according to your data but nevertheless feels that it can’t afford as many children as it might like it feels that it has student debt it’s crippling its Economic Opportunity and uh it doesn’t seem to be as confident and viable as at least it’s that’s the perception and that’s what politics is kind of gear to it you’re right about the perception yeah the other thing very quickly about passports that’s true too but mostly when you talk about we didn’t have clearly defined borders it was a matter of population density and Pro provinces and uh areas that were not yet States so territories so from 1800 to 1900 there people really weren’t even sure where the Mexican border was they had a general idea what Rio Grande but with the Rio Grande sto say in California or Arizona they didn’t know exactly where the Border was or that they it wasn’t a really a a pressing concern because there was not uh large numbers of immigrants coming in Mass to settle and when there was they addressed that at Ellis Islands because mostly people were coming trans Oceanic and so that they did have once that started they realized they did need some type of passport control because we’re not talking about you know a 100,000 people that were cattle ranchers or Farmers or Traders going back and forth AC or Outlaws they were talking they were talking about massive numbers of people coming from particular places in Ireland or Germany and Eastern Europe and they wanted very much to know how many were coming they wanted to know where they were coming and they wanted to make sure that they would assimilate as rapidly as possible into the body politic and they that last little thing you said um fertility has been collapsing everywhere it’s not unique to America in fact we’re doing better uh than most other places so that that’s a global I’m not suggesting this is I think it’s I think it’s a western phenomenon the collapse of fertility and I think it has something to do in the two worst countries as you know are are um not even Germany it’s South Korea and a lot of that is when you read the literature about South Korea there’s a perception that the middle class is almost it’s it’s squeezed more than here as far as their ability to buy a home or to buy two cars or to do things that they thought in the past but anyway we continue yes next you have time for a couple more questions if there is any yeah Victor thank you very much for coming yeah thank you very much for coming I’m gonna take care a very different perspective um let me ask you this big broad question what’s wrong I mean America is the most successful Nation on Earth I don’t think anybody could dispute that fact it is and I think most people would say it’s precisely the immigration policy the country followed it’s precisely the Mel Melting Pot that resulted in the huge success of the country I don’t see much different now to past immigration waves you know we you know I mean you’re an expert I’m not the expert but as far as I know in the I think the 20s or whatever there was a you know a huge reaction against immigration that shut down immigration for a very long time um in response to Too Much immigration coming in but those immigrants were all well assimilated into the country and you know why are we concerned that again we’re going to get a reaction now we’re going to stop the immigration but I don’t see any real concern that we have lost our ability to assimilate people into the American culture and that you know do what made this country so successful uh well it depends on where you live in some areas you’re correct I suggest if you come to the southern Fresno County uh you might have a different interpretation how’s that different to Brooklyn when well Brooklyn I think you’re conflating illegal and legal immigration part of the reason that I think illegal immigration represents a challenge is that legal immigration is is what as you say has made America really astounding and we want legal immigration in fact I don’t see any problem with letting in a million people if legally but when you put constraints on legal immigration and a legal immigrant say he’s coming from the Punjab and he’s wants to farm 80 acres with his uncle and it takes him eight years to get through the immigration process and then he says people just walked over the border that person was a felon in Mexico or Venezuela here they are there’s no there’s no you don’t know who they are but yet you we we have a a very diverse way we look at legal immigration and illegal immigration we punish the legal immigrant we ask them to be self-supporting in many cases we want to know what their skills are to get a green card and we have absolutely no adjudication we have 350,000 people here that are known felons we don’t know where they are and does it make a difference yeah I live in a very rural area just to take I don’t like to do anecdote but I grew up in an area that was always about 75% Mexican American most people were first generation they came legally it was a wonderful place assimilation took usually two or three generations that generation I grew up with basically are the police the city councilman they are the critics of the current system they cannot believe what is happening we have 5,000 people that were came in mass and you have a very different view when you walk out in your orchard and you and you find a corpse in your orchard and no one knows who the corpse is and that’s or you look across the street and you see 55 people living across the street from you in two houses and you ask the county or what happened to registration about dog licensing or what happened about building codes or cess pools when there’s open pits for sewage and they’ll tell you we have no idea who’s living there we don’t want to know all we know is some people are serenos and some people are n and we don’t want to get in the middle and so we have large Enclave Mota California is a good example the Mexican-American Community asked for Federal Protection because M13 had taken over the town and most of the people in it were here illegally so all I’m arguing for is we’re enriched by immigration I’m a big Pro legal immigration person I think we could even expand it some of the thing that keeps America working is we get all of these talented uh immigrants but when you let in for example 12 million people within three and a half years from the poorest regions in the country and you have no background check you have no idea who’s coming in you have no ability to assimilate them and you have a large segment of the intelligencia that will tell these new people that they are somehow victimized or there’s not a necessity to understand the protocols of American citizenship or Civic educa then you have a you have a problem and that’s what’s happened do I think it’s permanent no I think we we’re going through this period that we’ve had some similarities in the past and each time we’ve dealt with them does it create xenophobia that’s unfortunate yes but what’s what’s unusual about what we’re watching now and you saw that in the last election is the primary opposition to Illegal immigration South of the Border is coming from predominantly Hispanic communities why is that because they will tell you that they took them seven weeks to get their mother on dialysis and have the government pay for it and suddenly when they go to the dialysis clinic there’s 20 people there who they she can’t get the social services are inundated or they they go to their school and if their son does not speak Spanish anymore somebody tells them that he’s a gringo and they’ve been getting a fight that person will tell them that Nortenos is going to be meeting them after school so you have a huge we’ve never done this before we’ve never had 16% of the population foreign born maybe it’s good maybe we’ll find out but so far I think the electorate feels that illegal immigration except to the economy was the number two concern that they all have and they were not talking about legal immigration they were talking about massive illegal immigration they weren’t talking about illegal immigration of 100 or 150,000 in the past they were talking about 12 million people and 10 to 20,000 people per day and they felt that it had roded the exclusivity of citizenship and these people who felt that way were not Anglo-Saxon white affluent at all they were lower and middle class Hispanic people and they felt that it was injurious to their their visions of upward mobility and they felt kind deprived that they felt they had played by the rules and gone through all the Hoops to get green cards and that suddenly you could fly in from Waka or chapas or mokan to Fresno and you could get on social welfare systems and they had no idea whether the person they met at the dialysis clinic was a felon escaping a cartel they had no idea and they had not been they had not been treated that way themselves they had been told there were rules and regulations that they followed and so this was a Grassroots it it didn’t come from in fact I can make the further argument that the elite in the country the corporate Elite especially was for open borders that was what was the fun The Wealthy by income if you look at the polls of the wealthier people are the more they are in favor of illegal immigration the less wealthy and the more that they feel precarious on the economic ladder and it’s not just xenophobia or paranoia that’s what the inner city of Chicago I mean one of the reasons that in this last election 8 177% of African-Americans but African-American males 26% it was a it was a feeling that the federal government was privileging people in a way that they felt was unfair to the citizen and that that’s where I think that but I don’t I don’t if I misled you and suggest that I was opposed to Legal immigration I think that one of the reasons California survives all of its inflicted wounds is it’s able to attract a lot of very capable industrious people of all classes from all over the world legally the other thing is psychologically once a person comes across the border illegally and feels there was no consequences then the next step that you can reside illegally becomes natural then the third step is to if you come in illegally there was the law was nullified for you the resident law was nullified then the third aspect ECT is identification so you can get identification and what are we going to do now as I was just reminded by a lot of my Mexican-American Friends by our upgraded license a real ID that everybody had to get in line and you had to show not just your license but a passport or birth certificate and a residency of California to get a bare stamped on your license so you could fly federal government says that you have to have that and yet people who are coming illegally in Tucson if you go to the uh Phoenix Airport you will see a designation where a person comes illegally and they go right through without any identification and that that strikes an American as un unfair and a lot of people in the millions felt so and those were the issues that that I think in a lot of cases determine the outcome of the election and it wasn’t demagoguing it wasn’t xenophobia it wasn’t racism it wasn’t protectionism it was a Grassroots feel that the American citizen had no particular uh treat the government their own government didn’t particularly favor them over a foreign National who had broken the law when they had abided by it it was a fundamental issue of unfairness you know I agree with that I didn’t it seemed like you were conflating the two no I agree we legal illegal immigration we have to fix but otherwise country depends on yeah one of the reasons I’m worried about illegal immigration is because people who are so affected by it um and I’ve had this argument with a lot of opponents of illegal migrant then they want all immigration they call it a timeout and they say well until we fix it let’s just have no immigration and I don’t think that from a selfish point of view we have these talented people all over the world that feel they’re either a misfit economically culturally politically in their own country many of them and they feel that the United States would allow them to develop in a way that they feel is in their interest but in the interest of humanity and we get all of these people and it’s but why would we endanger that system by at the same time allowing 12 million people some with criminal backgrounds not the majority but enough to be very worried about or health backgrounds and just let them come in illegally and then expect them to follow our laws com and traditions when we we don’t even enforce the law so that that was the distinction I I but I’m a big proponent of legal immigration and at very high levels a million a year you have another question I don’t know if we have time yes uh there is the last question by Dan CL yeah hi thanks for everything everything you say resonates with me you said something about the discussion of the Electoral College and point was had to do with B Integrity yeah I know of other good Arguments for the Electoral College um and I’m trying to understand this one because the way it seems to work now is almost as though the Electoral College would give an incentive to cheat let’s say that extra 100,000 votes in Arizona because you get not just 100,000 votes you get the whole 100% of the votes yes I don’t so how does that work well the way that it’s discussed in documents and the I think it’s in the Federalist Papers but it’s the founders were worried about it that if there was a national effort to rig the vote and you did not have the Electoral College you just went by the popular vote and you the the the federal government controlled all balloting then it would be easier to do it all in one Fell Swoop but when you outsourced the primary responsibility for making ballot rules and that the electors would be chosen by the popular vote within the state then there was less chance that states or the government could get together and affect the the Integrity of the voting I’m not suggesting that maybe they were mistaken in the way they worked out in the modern era that a large State uh could affect the national vote and that uh but that was the original intent at least that they thought that you couldn’t rig the national you could easier rig the national one-time vote than you could uh all of the states electing their electors in different that’s actually more about administering the voting yes is about the electoral college versus the percentages yes I think it was the idea of dividing up the responsibility into so many hands that it would be impossible to coordinate them in a conspiratorial fashion I’m not suggesting that it’s always worked out the way they envisioned but that was one argument for the main argument was to the main argument was to appeal to Americans as members of a particular State as well as being a citizen of a nation and also uh the Jeffersonian argument that you wanted people to visit the the frontier of the countryside and there was something in western civilization going back to Rome and Greece an idealization or a romanization of yry and independent Homestead farmers and that they were the B the and I think there is something to today about having diverse people by uh by population density the other big argument for the Electoral College is of course just the fact that it’s disproportionate and give smaller States more Sway and that yes that um has other other good elements yeah I I think so I mean I I would I i’ like to see what’s going on in Wyoming and Montana and Michigan and Pennsylvania not just in Los Angeles and New York and things like that harder to get thraldom throughout the country like everywhere like yeah yeah I don’t know if we have time for one more question is there any other question I’ll jump in and ask one I’ll jump in and ask one actually I just posted in the in the chat but um thanks Victor this was this was great um I mean I just it was a point that I actually was hoping maybe you could comment on or others yeah um it was made earlier in the chat that you know if you came here in the 1920s um you might have had to go work immediately in a factory whereas today there’s all there all kinds of government programs you can rely on and it just seems like you’re going to get very different citizens and likely very different degrees of assimilation uh in those two different settings if you have to interact with the free market economy for uh for your survival and your well-being versus just being able to depend on a on a welfare State seems arguably that people are much more likely to assim assimilate and develop more of a national identity when they have to interact with the economy as a whole um for their well I think you I think you can see that in action because the the the greatest proponents uh for legal immigration or at least uh even if a person comes illegally finding legal status to work in my experience I think think the data shows are Mexican American um legal residents they are the most opposed to Illegal immigration and even within their own families but I think if you look at one of the reasons that California hasn’t quite descended despite itself with its crazy policiy is is they’re starting to develop a large class of Mexican-American entrepreneurs and they’re legal and they are becoming maybe if not yet politically conservative traditionally conservative about hard work and when they come here and they see there’s this opportunity and the government programs maybe they might have been on them or their brothers on them but they’re Perpetual rather than temporary and there’s much more opportunity to get into the free market and be a roofer or concrete but there’s large swats of the state I don’t think we appreciate that the uh for example the trucking industry on the 99 free way is estimated 50% Punjabi the uh carpentry or ma framing industry drywall in Fresno County is about 90% Mexican-American and there’s amazing entrepreneurialism and the funny thing is you’re absolutely right the more that people engage in free market Activity The More The Confident they get the more they become traditional and they want legal only immigration and they’re worried their their wages are undercut by uh illegal immigration or people on welfare or their services are curtailed by just the saturation of people coming in maass so that that’s one thing that uh I think immigration is if it’s not subsidized it’s not illegal it’s wonderful because it invigorates people I know it does me when I see people working I I put a rool in my house and I knew a guy who came here legally 20 years ago he’s impoverished came out and asked for a job and I remembered him and he said he did shingles he he now own he employs 25 people and he did my roof and I talked to him for hours why it was happening and all he gave me was your argument there’s nothing better than the United States and we come here we get to do what we want we can make all the money we want he said something that was almost it was very original but I mean it was really he said what I like about this country is we don’t everything’s judged by money and he was telling me that he’s very wealthy and the local school board wants him to run and the this local hospital board wants him on it and he said he was born in mokan but he has so much money now that he’s got status in other words in the United States that status is not confined to your race he’s indigenous he’s he’s from southern Mexico and he spoke actually a a language other than Spanish his original language was Baja mixa but the point he was making was if you make money in the United States you get status and it doesn’t matter who your parents are or birth it’s based on your own agree to make money and he felt that that was I guess he was trying to say to me it was more of an equalizing phenomenon than being confined to Mexico where you were judged by who your parents were where you lived or your or your complexion or whatever but here in America once you made money then you were sought out and considered part of the establishment so I AG for one more question yeah yeah do you have time for one more question uh Victor I wanted to ask you a quick question so so you talk you talk about tribalism and and you know W wokeness you know seems to I mean the main agenda of wokeness seems to be the sort of identity politics and tribalism and I don’t know the reason for that I presume many many woke people on the left actually are the Believers uh in in sort of identity politics right uh but some people also claim that this sort of tribalism is politically useful to the left particularly if you combine the identity politics with a very loose immigration policy but if you look at the results of the election it would seem as though this sort of project completely failed right so rather than tribalism what you see is the opposite right you see a sort of political depolarization you see Latinos voting Republic more than ever right and and so whatever demographic group you consider what you see is the opposite of tribalism right there is this very strong Trend towards the opposite so um do you agree with that and do what would expain no I agree I agree entirely Dei is an elite imposed phenomenon top down and assimilation intergration intermarriage is bottom up and it’s it it doesn’t have to be this difficult but it is because of this Elite driven Dei and it’s largely for I I see it’s a phenomenon an abstract phenomenon to reward people that are pretty much college educated and they’re professionals but uh it’s not shared by the middle and lower classes to the same degree and they are rejecting it uh in in widespread popular and that was what the election was about that’s why this election got people so angry on the left because they felt uh I was listening to Al Sharpton and Joe Scarboro discuss it and they were almost racist and say they were blaming black males in the way that Obama did what’s wrong with these people they’re sexist they wouldn’t vote they they were just clueless that people might have class concerns that would transcend their racial or ethnic identity and that’s what’s frightening I think to some on the left that they see this trend now that people are saying if you’re a Mexican American truck driver or you’re a so-called white electrician or you’re a black sales uh you know a post office person you have more in common with each other than you do a Silicon Valley Elite or Al Sharpton or larazza something that’s a very scary idea that you substitute class interest rather than race so I I think that’s I agree with you that’s very positive the other thing that’s that’s it’s that’s making Dei wither is just the fact of inner marriage and artificial emphasis when people would not be able superficially to detect one’s race or background I’m I’m not just taking about the extreme cases of Elizabeth Warren and her high cheek bones being the first Native American law professor at Harvard or Ward Churchill but in a real sense in an intermarried society and especially when we just dismiss class and we have people from the upper classes who claim that they’re 18 this or one six this and therefore they feel that they can tap into historic Deon uh discrimination and reparatory fashion that they’re they deserve special treatment and yet superficially nobody can tell what they are anymore and I think that’s a good thing in marriage um I have one brother that was married to someone from Mexico Mexican americ I have another brother’s two children or half Mexican American and it was very funny to see in the same family children children that didn’t have a last name if their name was compos middle name was compos their last name was Hansen but two of the children were felt that they could identify as compost and the other two couldn’t the way that the university treated the two in other words and yet they had the same background the same C same parents and everything but it’s this emphasis on Elite I don’t know it’s a psychological mechanism to out of guilt like a med phenomenon of penance where in the abstract you’re for all of this and then you feel that therefore you’re not you’re acceptable but there’s something about this Dei uh especially among the white Elites that they’re they’re not it’s not coming from people who live next to minorities or intermar with minorities it’s coming from that Elite Class of the of the left that impose it and I think the people are starting for the first time to as you suggest rebel against partly for practical reasons you can’t because we are not a systematically racist society and people are intermarrying at a record degree and we’re becoming the that category of other or mixed race is almost larger than any one particular especially in California where we don’t have a majority of any particular race that it it these are aifi calcified reactionary Concepts that no longer fit the demographic so the future I’m very confident I just wish in the present we didn’t make it so difficult on ourselves okay that was fantastic thank you very much Victor thank you everybody thank you everybody
Experience Freedom
Welcome to the Conversation on Free Speech!
Welcome to Truly Right View!
We’re here to explore real, unfiltered truths—unswayed by media bias or government agendas.
What do you think? Are you ready to hear insights you won’t find elsewhere?
👉 Subscribe to the Truly Right View YouTube Channel | Rumble Channel and join our community dedicated to open dialogue.
What Does Free Speech Mean to You?
In today’s world, where tech giants and news outlets hold so much influence, is free speech at risk?
From silencing certain viewpoints to heavy censorship, the freedom to speak without fear is under threat.
Tell us your thoughts:
- Is free speech still a right everyone enjoys?
- Do you think we’re protecting it well enough?
🔍 Let’s dive into the heart of this discussion. Add your voice below!
Will You Speak Up or Stay Silent?
In the end, the future of free speech rests in our hands. We can either stand idly by as it is eroded by corporate and governmental overreach, or we can take action to protect and preserve it.
Will you speak up for your rights, or will you allow them to be taken away piece by piece?
The choice is yours.
Subscribe to the YouTube channel and the Rumble channel for Truly Right View today, and support our patriots shop together, let’s ensure that free speech remains the bedrock of our Constitutional Republic.
