News Wrap: Lebanese government approves economic reforms amid mass protests


JUDY WOODRUFF: In the day’s other news: Lebanon’s
leaders approved economic reforms aimed at stopping mass protests. Vast crowds filled Central Beirut over the
weekend in a revolt against the ruling elite. And, today, demonstrations shut down banks
and businesses for a fifth day. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri met
with his cabinet today, then announced the reforms and hailed the protesters. SAAD HARIRI, Lebanese Prime Minister (through
translator): You have put the Lebanese national identity back in its place above all sectarian
or religious identity. And this is the biggest national victory. I’m not asking you to stop protesting or expressing
your anger. That is a decision that you take, and no one
can give you a deadline. JUDY WOODRUFF: The prime minister’s economic
package promises to deal with massive debt by cutting salaries of top officials in half
and closing some ministries. In Hong Kong, new protests late today brought
new street clashes. Heavily armed police fired tear gas to break
up groups who tried to block roads. That came a day after riot police mistakenly
sprayed a mosque with blue-dyed water, as mass demonstrations turned violent. Today, city leaders apologized. Hundreds of people in Santiago, Chile, defied
a curfew today, after the city became a battleground over the weekend, with at least 11 dead. On Sunday, protesters angered by growing inequality
and a transit fare increase torched buses and vandalized subway stations. Soldiers fired tear gas and water cannon,
and President Sebastian Pinera denounced the protests. SEBASTIAN PINERA, Chilean President (through
translator): We are at war with a powerful, relentless enemy that respects nothing or
anyone and is willing to use violence and crime without any limits, even when it involves
the loss of human lives. JUDY WOODRUFF: Pinera has suspended the transit
fare hike, but he imposed a state of emergency in Santiago and other cities. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
announced today that he has given up on forming a national unity government. His chief rival, former military chief Benny
Gantz, will now take a turn. If he, too, fails, it could lead to Israel’s
third election in less than a year. Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson
was dealt another blow in his efforts to get a vote on a Brexit plan. The speaker of the House of Commons said that
parliamentary rules do not allow a vote, because lawmakers had refused to act Saturday on the
same question. But he said the prime minister has other options. JOHN BERCOW, Speaker, House of Commons: If
the government have got the numbers, the government can have their way. And it’s not for the speaker to interfere. The judgment I have made is about the importance
of upholding a very longstanding and overwhelmingly observed convention of this house. JUDY WOODRUFF: Britain faces an October 31
deadline to leave the European Union. Canada held a national election today, with
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s job at stake. He has been hurt by an ethics scandal and
by his admission that he wore blackface years ago. Trudeau was joined by his wife and children
as he cast his vote in Montreal. He is vying to remain a leading progressive
voice on the world stage. His main opponent is Andrew Scheer, leader
of the Conservative Party. Back in this country, the three largest drug
distributors and a major pharmaceutical manufacturer reached a settlement with two Ohio counties
in the opioid epidemic. It totals $260 million, and it could lead
to a broader national settlement of more than 2,600 lawsuits. We will take a closer look later in the program. The governor of Texas has declared a disaster
in 16 counties after severe storms, including a tornado, roared through the Dallas area
overnight. The twister touched down near the main airport. It moved eastward, tearing through trees,
ripping off roofs and left thousands in the dark. But the Dallas mayor said it could have been
much worse. ERIC JOHNSON, Mayor of Dallas, Texas: Considering
the path that the storm took, and it went across a pretty densely populated part of
our city, I think we should consider ourselves very fortunate that we didn’t lose any lives. No fatalities and no serious injuries in last
night’s storm, so I think we should all be grateful for that. JUDY WOODRUFF: The same weather system killed
one person in Arkansas and three in Oklahoma. The Trump administration is moving forward
with a plan to collect DNA samples from legal asylum-seekers and anyone who enters the U.S.
illegally. The Justice Department issued the proposed
rule today. It said that the biometric records would be
transferred to an FBI database and used for criminal investigations. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones industrial
average gained 57 points, to close at 26827. The Nasdaq rose 73 points, and the S&P 500
added 20. And, after 166 years, New York’s Central Park
will have a monument to famous women. A city commission voted today to erect a statue
of three pioneering figures. They are women’s suffrage icons Elizabeth
Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, and Sojourner Truth, who escaped slavery to became a leading
abolitionist. Central Park already has 23 statues, all of
men. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: the latest
from the campaign trail and a one-on-one interview with Senator Bernie Sanders; Tamara Keith
and Amy Walter break down the latest on the impeachment fight in Congress and more; four
drug companies reach a last-minute deal in a high-stakes opioid case; and healing Flint,
how focused nutrition programs battle the effects of lead-laden water.

Trump defends Tulsi Gabbard, Jill Stein in ‘Hannity’ exclusive


ANYMORE. BECAUSE THAT LEVEL WAS SO GOOD. THEY DON’T TALK ABOUT ANYMORE, SEAN. THE REASON THEY DON’T TALK ABOUT IT, THERE IS NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT. SPENT THE REASON, THE NEXT THING YOU SAY THOUGH, I THINK, MAKES YOUR POINT. YOU SAY AS YOU SAW YESTERDAY, THE WHOLE NONSENSE ENDED WITH A POOR PERFORMANCE BY A MAN NAMED ROBERT MUELLER, INCOMPETENT PERFORMANCE BUT THEY SAY A LOT OF IT STARTED WITH UKRAINE. WHATEVER YOU DO, IT IS IMPORTANT.>>President Trump: AND IT DID, IT ENDED WITH A POOR PERFORMANCE AND THIS IS AFTER TWO YEARS OF AN INVESTIGATION WHETHER $45 MILLION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEY HAD 2,500 SUBPOENAS, 500 WITNESSES, ALL BECAUSE PROBABLY HILLARY CLINTON SAID JUST LIKE SHE DID WITH TULSI GABBARD, JUST LIKE SHE DID WITH JILL STEIN, SHE SAID “JILL STEIN IS A RUSSIAN ASSET. NOW COME I DON’T KNOW JILL STEIN. I KNOW A ENVIRONMENTALIST AND PROBABLY A GOOD WOMAN BUT THE LESSON SHE HAS A RUSSIAN ASSET. I DON’T KNOW TULSI GABBARD BUT I KNOW WHEN THINK SHE IS NOT AN ASSET OF RUSSIA. THESE PEOPLE ARE SICK. THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THEM.>>Sean: I WANT TO SHOW YOU THIS AND WE WILL PUT IT UP ON THE SCREEN FOR PEOPLE AT HOME. UKRAINIAN EFFORTS TO SABOTAGE TRUMP BACKFIRE. THIS WAS JANUARY 11, 2017. YOU WERE INAUGURATED. THIS ARTICLE TALKS ABOUT HOW UKRAINE WORKED WITH HILLARY TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTIONS. THEY GIVE CHAPTER AND VERSE HOW THEY DID IT. NOW, AS THE PRESIDENT, DO YOU FEEL THERE WAS — YOU SPENT TWO AND HALF YEARS WITH RUSSIAN COLLUSION AND IGNORE THE DOSSIER IN UKRAINE ADMITTING THAT THEY HELPED HILLARY.>>President Trump: THE DOSSIER WAS A DISGRACE. THE DOSSIER WAS TOTALLY FAKE. NOW IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE FAKE. PEOPLE, YOU KNOW HOW THAT WAS DONE. YOU HAVE A TRACK RECORD NOW AND YOU KNOW AS WELL AS EVERYBODY THEY ARE DOING AN INVESTIGATION, BUT I THINK BEFORE YOU DO THE INVESTIGATION, SO THEY DO A FAKE DOSSIER ON ME. THEY TRIED TO RELEASE IT BEFORE THE ELECTION TO AFFECT THE ELECTION. I DON’T KNOW HOW THEY DID. IT’S THE ONLY THING I RESPECT ABOUT THE PROCESS IS THEY REFUSED TO PUT IT IN BEFORE THE ELECTION BECAUSE IT COULD HAVE HAD A LITTLE IMPACT. MAYBE IT COULD HAVE HAD A LITTLE MORE THAN THE IMPACT. THEY DO A FAKE DOSSIER THAT WAS PROBABLY MEANT TO GET OUT BEFORE THE ELECTION SO THAT THEY COULD AFFECT THE ELECTIONS. AND LOOK AT THE PEOPLE THAT WROTE IT. LOOK AT WHERE THEY CAME FROM. AND LOOK AT THE WIFE OF THE MAN WHO WORKS, I WON’T EVEN MENTION NAMES, AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

Arnold Schwarzenegger: with dreams of becoming a legend


Arnold Schwarzenegger rose to fame as the
world’s top bodybuilder, launching a career that would make him a giant Hollywood star
via films like Conan the Barbarian, The Terminator and Total Recall. After years of blockbuster movie roles, Schwarzenegger
went into politics, becoming governor of California in 2003. He returned to the big screen after leaving
office in 2011, finding success with The Expendables franchise and a return to the Terminator series. Arnold Schwarzenegger was born on July 30,
1947, near Graz, Austria. Schwarzenegger’s childhood was far from ideal. His father, Gustav, was an alcoholic police
chief and one-time member of the Nazi Party, who clearly favored Arnold’s brother over
his gangly, seemingly less athletic younger son. Arnold Schwarzenegger said the violence from
the father created the Arnold of today: “A lot of kids around me were whipped when parents
didn’t want to create a person but just a obedient guy, I was like a rebel who refused
to follow a set path and that was why I was beaten. Every time I was hit or listened to someone
to make me cynical, I always told myself: ‘This won’t last long because I’m going to
leave. I will become rich and I will become an influential
person. So uptight and uncomfortable, in fact, that
Schwarzenegger would later refuse to attend the funeral of his father, who died in 1972,
or his brother, who was killed in a car crash in 1971. The unhappy childhood is one of the important
reason that lead Arnold to become a empower man who know exactly what he need and what
he should have done. He becomes a Mr universe in 1980. From the age of 14, the young man started
working out after trying out football. Arnold was so passionate about fitness that
he was ready to break into the gym on the weekends to practice stealthily: “Missing
a day of practice can make me sick. I know I won’t be able to look at myself in
the mirror in the morning if I didn’t practice the day before. ”As a result, at the age of 17, Arnold Schwarzengger
possessed a sculpted body and began to participate in competitions. Schwarzenegger was known as the Styrian Oak,
or Austrian Oak, in the bodybuilding world, where he dwarfed his competition. He won his first amateur Mr. Universe title
in 1967. After moving to California in 1968 to train
and compete in bigger events in the United States, he won four more Mr. Universe titles
and then the professional Mr. Olympia title six years in a row (1970–75) before retiring. He surprised the bodybuilding world by returning
to competition one more time to claim the Mr. Universe title in 1980. Bodybuilding was the subject of several of
his books, including the autobiographical Arnold: The Education of a Bodybuilder (1977)
and The New Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding (1998). After becoming the most famous bodybuilder
in the world, Arnold continues to conquer new role. His next goal is film, with action, masculine
roles. And His first film is in Hercules role , later,
Schwarzenegger’s native charm and wit finally came through in the acclaimed documentary
Pumping Iron (1977), which led to his starring role in Conan the Barbarian (1982). His other films include Predator (1987), Kindergarten
Cop (1990), Total Recall (1990), True Lies (1994), and The 6th Day (2000). Although he officially entered Hollywood in
the early 1970s with the film Hercules in New York, he was still regarded as a mediocre
actor by “the strange body and voice and the name is too long. It was not until the role of the brave Conan
in Conan the Barbarian (1982) that Arnold truly resonated. His giant appearance is perfectly suited to
play this ancient hero. Arnold’s fate is very similar to Conan himself. In the film, this character is famous for
being a gladiator and immersed in the colors before rediscovering himself on the battlefield,
being made king. In real life, Arnold became a celebrity as
a bodybuilder, after a period of substance abuse and chasing girls. No longtime later, he comeback again in the
field of film, married the late Kennedy’s grandson Maria Shriver and became Governor
of California. After gaining attention with Conan the Barbarian,
Schwarzenegger actually rose to a movie star as the “Terminator” T-800 in the science fiction
film The Terminator (1984). In the film, he plays the killer robot sent
to the past to destroy Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) – who later became the mother of
a hero. Although initially not expected much, The
Terminator unexpectedly achieved great success in terms of revenue. Many critics rated it as one of the best films
in 1984, with a focus on the cold-blooded T-800 and the classic “I’ll be back” line. The Terminator turned directors James Cameron
and Arnold Schwarzenegger into stars. These two close friends later collaborated
on two other successful films, the action-comedy True Lies (1994) and especially Terminator
2: Judgment Day (1991). In the second part, Arnold plays the T-800
robot back to the past to protect Sarah’s son John Connor from the T-1000 assassin. The film won four Oscars, becoming the best-selling
film in 1991 and ranked as one of the best action films in history. The hero with Arnold’s cold face wearing dark
glasses in Terminator 2 is the most famous figure of his career. When people say “Terminator” is referring
to Arnold and vice versa. Even when Arnold Schwarzenegger decided to
retire from politics to become political and become Governor of California between 2003
and 2011, people still called him “The Governator” as nick name(based on the combination of Governor
and Terminator. ).
When the Terminator 3 got no impression from audiences as well as movie critics, he started
another roles with a politician, after get married with his wife Maria Shriver. Marriage to Maria Shriver:
Off-screen Schwarzenegger continued his remarkable story, marrying into the Kennedy family in
1986 by tying the knot with Maria Owings Shriver, grandson of President Kennedy , daughter of
Eunice Kennedy Shriver and her husband R. Sargent Shriver. Schwarzenegger and Shriver have four children:
Katherine, Christina, Patrick and Christopher. Patrick followed his dad into the acting business,
appearing in several films as a child before taking a leading role in the 2018 teen tear-jerker
Midnight Sun. However, The couple announced their decision
to separate in May 2011, after Schwarzenegger’s acknowledgment that he’d fathered a baby with
a member of the family’s household staff. During the 1990s he became increasingly active
in the Republican Party at both the state and national levels, and in 2003 he was elected
governor of California in a recall election. In his initial years in office, Schwarzenegger
pushed for a number of restrictive measures that proved unpopular, especially with organized
labour. Nevertheless, he was reelected in 2006. He earned key legislative victories on issues
relating to the environment, including a landmark act to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in
California, and successfully advocated for ballot propositions to reform the state’s
redistricting process and political-primary format. At the same time, his governorship was encumbered
by the state’s enormous budget deficit, which ballooned to $26 billion in 2009. Despite a battery of service reductions and
salary cuts enacted to stem the fiscal crisis, the state’s economy continued to struggle,
and Schwarzenegger suffered from consistently low approval ratings. Because of term limits, he did not run for
reelection in 2010. Return to Hollywood: ‘The Expendables’ and
‘Terminator’ Sequels In 2010, Schwarzenegger appeared alongside
Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li and Bruce Willis in the ensemble action film
The Expendables. In August 2012, he reunited with the cast
for The Expendables 2. Just one week after the film’s premiere, it
had climbed to the No. 1 spot at the box office, bringing in nearly $28.6 million. Schwarzenegger made headlines again later
in 2012, when he admitted for the first time to having an affair with his Red Sonja co-star,
actress Brigitte Nielsen, in the mid-1980s, while he was dating and living with Maria
Shriver. Nielsen had written about the adulterous relationship
in her 2011 memoir, You Only Get One Life, but Schwarzenegger didn’t publicly confirm
Nielsen’s account until the fall of 2012, when his memoir, Total Recall, was published. Continuing with his acting career, Schwarzenegger
rejoined Stallone for The Expendables 3 in 2014. The following year he returned to the film
franchise that made him a star with Terminator Genisys. After the release of Terminator Genisys, many
people rated Arnold’s presence as one of the movie’s highlights. Recently he also made a nice gesture to the
fans. After a man said his ill father smiled back
when he saw Terminator Genisys, Arnold personally wrote in response: “Your story is very touching. I want to say that this is the reason why
I am acting but you should know that you made your father laugh. I want to tell your father that I feel honored
when my silly smile in the Terminator made him laugh. ”
It is the intimate actions that show such interest in the fans and the action roles
that make Arnold Schwarzengger – even at the age of U70 – still one of the most popular
stars in the world.

George Friedman: “Flashpoints: The Emerging Crisis in Europe” | Talks at Google


MALE SPEAKER: Today with
us is George Friedman, an American political scientist,
author, and entrepreneur. His newest book is “Flash
Points– The Emerging Crisis in Europe.” Mr. Friedman was born in
1949 in Budapest, Hungary. He has authored several
books, including “The Next 100 Years,” “The Next
Decade,” “America’s Secret War,” “The Intelligence
Edge,” “The Coming War with Japan,” and
“The Future of War.” His newest, about which we’ll
talk today, “Flash Points,” talks about the emerging
crisis in Europe, and was published by Doubleday. Mr. Freedman’s childhood
was shaped directly by international conflict. He was born in Hungary
to Jewish parents who survived the Holocaust. His family fled Hungary
when he was a child to escape the communist
regime, settling first in a camp for displaced
persons in Austria, and then emigrating
to the United States. Mr. Friedman received a BA at
the City College of New York, where he majored in
political science, and a Ph.D. In government
at Cornell University. Prior to joining
the private sector, Mr. Friedman spent almost
20 years in academia, teaching political science
at Dickinson College. Mr. Friedman is the founder and
CEO of the Private Geopolitical Forecasting and Intelligence
Corporation, Stratfor. Please welcome Mr.
Friedman to Google. Thank you. [APPLAUSE] GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Well, I am
pleased to be here at the one company that Siemens
is worried about. Google. And actually that plays
a role in the story that I’ll tell here. And you play a part. So all talks on books should
begin with a justification for writing yet
another book, where there’s millions
already written. I had two reasons for wanting
to write this book directly. The first, I’ve written a book
called “The Next 100 Years,” which had forecast the
failure of the European Union. The events that we see in
Ukraine now, things of that sort. These things are of
fundamental importance, because Europe remains one of
the centers of world culture, and it remains the single
largest economic region of the world, larger
than the United States. What happens in Europe
does not stay in Europe. And if the European Union
is failing– as I’m arguing it does– this has consequences
that will resonate for decades. The second reason
I wrote this book is quite personal, as
was just pointed out. My life, and the
life of my family, was bound up with the
geopolitics of Europe. I have a chapter in there–
the second chapter– that’s called “A European
Life.” and it was meant to say it was life of my
father, and to a lesser extent, my mother. And what I was
saying was that there was nothing unique in this life. It was just a European life. Those Europeans who lived
through the 20th century, particularly the first
half, were either uniquely fortunate
to live through it, or uniquely cunning, or both. But a European life
collided with European geopolitics over and over
again to create catastrophe. My parents were born
just before World War I. And in that war, their
fathers, brothers fought on the Turkish
front, mostly, because they were Hungarians. And after the war,
the borders shifted, and the places they were born
became part of other countries. And they moved to
Budapest where they met, and they fell in love,
and they married, and had a daughter– my older
sister– and made a living. They tried to live
an ordinary life. And then European geopolitics
shifted again in the ’30s. And Germany became the
rising power again. And suddenly my parents became
national security threats to the German state. They were Jews. My father was forced
into the Hungarian army, into a Jewish labor battalion. And he went to just
north of Stalingrad in 1942, to a city
called Voronezh. And that was exactly the
point where the Soviets staged their counterattack against
the German Sixth Army. My father then walked back
in the winter of ’42, ’43, to Budapest. A distance of a thousand miles
through a bitter cold winter, poorly clothed. He survived where almost
everybody else in his unit died, partly by the fact
that he was a tough man, and partly by the fact
that he was a smart man, but overwhelmingly because
he was a lucky man. Because that’s all
that really mattered. He went back to Budapest. And then for a year or
so, he was able to live. The Germans had not
yet occupied Hungary. And then the
Germans decided they had to occupy Hungary because
Horthy, the leader of Hungary, was making a deal
with the Russians. And they sent my father and my
mother to concentration camps. My sister at the age of five was
left alone in a Swiss shelter to survive how she could. There was nothing
unique about this life. Everybody, Christian,
Jew, whatever, suffered through this. It should not be taken as a
unique story of my family. It was a unique story of Europe. And then the communists came. They survived, they came back. And the Soviet army
occupied Hungary. And my uncle, who was a
member of the Communist Party, and part of the Secret Police,
let my father know shortly in 1948, that he was on a list. He had been a member of the
Social Democratic Party. The Communists hated
the Social Democrats. And he was on a list. And this was a time
and a place where you should not be on any list. And so my parents face
an existential choice– stay and perhaps die at the
hands of the Secret Police, or try to escape. And so in one night in August,
the family went to a point on the Czechoslovakian
border, on the Danube, and we got into a rubber raft
and went across the river. I’m told that searchlights
were playing on the river, and machine guns were
in search towers. And it was just luck that the
searchlights didn’t find us. And I was, of course,
asleep, drugged, because I was a danger
to the entire operation. Why did we go to Czechoslovakia? Because, again of geopolitics. The British had lost Palestine. The Israeli State
had been established. And the Russians
wanted to do anything to undermine the British. And they were hoping they could
form an alliance with Israel, and make Israel
a kind of toehold for the Communists
on the Mediterranean. The Israelis needed two things. One was weapons. The other were Jews. The Soviets had both. And they routed these weapons
through Czechoslovakia. And they routed these Jews
through Czechoslovakia. And from there they were
taken to a port, Trieste, where they were
shipped to Israel. And my parents sought to hookup
with these Israeli smugglers, which they did in the
town of [INAUDIBLE]. Now my father had no desire
to go to the United States. He was a deeply
committed Zionist, but he wanted nothing
to do with Israel. The paradox was that he
had spent his life trying to stay alive in the face
of people who believe deeply in things. And he did not want
to go to another place where people believe
deeply in things, and might take his
life on either side. Or as he said, I wasn’t going
to go to the Negev Desert with two hand grenades
and start again. I had had enough of this. And so my father
sought to go to a place that– he had two requirements. First, it should be stronger
than all its neighbors. And secondly, no
one should believe in anything nearly strongly
enough to kill him. He had very low standards. He didn’t want to go to
Canada because Canada was a weak country, and
America was a strong country, and who knows what would happen. Reasoning like that. He wanted to go to
the United States. To go to the United
States was complex. But somewhere in this
my father made a deal where my mother,
my sister, and I were allowed to go
to the United States and become citizens
very quickly. My father stayed behind. This was a time when the Cold
War was beginning– or had actually gotten fairly intense. And the Americans
who had no idea what was going on the other
side of the Iron Curtain were recruiting anyone who
even spoke the language. My father did speak
Hungarian, and that was enough to be recruited. They also recruited
many Soviet agents, so it was a complete disaster. The CIA at its best. And then eventually my father
came to the United States. In United States we grew
up in the Bronx, which was a tough neighborhood,
but not as bad as it became. And then we moved to
Queens to a little house. And he loved this house. And my mother loved the house. And it had a little garden. And one day my father
heard me playing somebody called Pete Seeger
on the record player. And Pete Seeger
was a folk singer who spoke about little
houses made of ticky tacky and the corruption
of suburban life. My father asked me
what he was saying. And I said, well he
was saying that people who live in suburban
houses that look alike are losing their identities. The house is their identity. They are the house. And when everything looks
alike, you have become ants. There’s no difference. And my father said
to me– I’ll never forget– this is what
Americans worry about? And what he meant
by that was, look, I’m not worried about
losing my identity. I’m worried about
losing my life. If I don’t have to worry
about my dying, my wife dying, my children dying– I’m happy. My identity doesn’t
depend on the house. And frankly, I’m not
worried about my identity. I know who I am. I explained, look, when
you live in the United States– a very rich country,
a very powerful country, a country that’s almost
invulnerable– you worry about these things. When you come from Hungary in
the middle of the 20th century, you don’t have to. My father said
something else to me. Every American student
wants to go to Europe. And I went to Europe. And I said to my
father, why don’t you come visit Europe with me? And his answer was, there’s
nothing in Europe for me. I said, don’t you want to
see where you were born? No. I hate them. And I said, look. They’ve changed. And he said to me, the
Europeans will never change. They only will pretend
it didn’t happen. That’s what the root cause
for me to write this book. The European Union
was an attempt to transform Europe from a
slaughterhouse into a place that had banished conflict,
that had banished poverty, that had banished all of
the bad impulses that were there before. It was a noble intention. But I had come to the
conclusion that the European Union was failing. And therefore the question
was, what comes next? If the European
Union doesn’t work, are all of the
monsters and fears that existed before– are they gone? And that really is
what the book is about. And it begins with
a paradox in Europe. Europe invented humanity. And by that I mean this–
before the European Age of Exploration,
the Mongolians had no idea there were Congolese. The Congolese had never
heard of the Aztecs. The Aztecs had never
heard of the Japanese. The Japanese have never
heard of the English. The world consisted of
separate little plants. There was no sense
of a common humanity. The idea that there is one
species throughout the world, and however different
they were, it wasn’t that they knew they
were there and rejected their humanity. They hadn’t a clue. For all its brutality, its
bloodshed, European imperialism achieved at least one thing. It discovered humanity. Humanity in the sense that
there is a single species, that we share things in common. And however much we
may hate each other, we hate each other as humans. This was an advance. But the Europeans did more. They transformed humanity’s
relationship to nature. To me, the vision that
I have is the movies where in pre-World War I
days, a concert is held. It’s a wintry night. And it’s dark. And inside that room,
might has been banished, and the winter it shut out. And elegant men and women come
together to listen to Mozart. Now from my point of view, any
culture that can create Mozart is forgiven many things. You have to accept that. But it was this
huge transformation of man’s relationship to time. A train could travel at 40
miles an hour, 50 miles an hour. A boat could go from London
to New York in a week. This was even before
the age of aircraft. The entire shape of the
planet, our understanding of what was possible, had
been changed by the Europeans. Europe had conquered
the world, and also it, in a very real sense,
conquered nature. Perfectly, no. But overwhelmingly redefined
how we experience life. The paradox is that Europe
never conquered itself. Throughout the 500 years from
1492 to 1992 of European power, no one was able to convince
the Europeans to unite in a single entity. And no one could
conquer them all. The Spanish tried. The French tried. The Germans tried. The English tried
half-heartedly. Even the Dutch took a shot. But the point is that
Europe was unconquerable. Europe is peninsulas
jutting out from peninsulas, mountains like the Alps, or the
Pyrenees, that can’t be passed, the Baltic Sea
separating part of it, and the vast steppes of Russia. Napoleon came the closest. Hitler then came close. Both of them died in the
wastelands of Russia. Europe could not be united. So you had this paradox. This entity that conquered the
world could not conquer itself. It conquered the
world, yet there was an ongoing
civil war in Europe. But the feeling was,
it’ll be alright. There was a man called
Norman Angell, who wrote a book called
“The Great illusion.” He won the Nobel Prize later. He was a brilliant man. And he demonstrated in
1910 that it was impossible for there to be a war in Europe. There could not
be a war in Europe because the financial
system was so leveraged that it would cause
financial disaster. International
trade was critical. Interdependence reigned. So there could be no war. What Angell didn’t understand
is interdependence leads to war. Madagascar and Brazil are
not going to fight a war. They have no issues
between them. But France and Germany are
interlocked geographically, industrially,
commercially, financially. And the advantage of one is
the disadvantage of the other. And each lives in dread of the
other, not just of its armies. But that fact that
interdependence means that if he does this,
this will mean this to me, makes each one want
to control the other, each one want to
dread the other. Wars do not happen
between nations that are not interconnected. They happen when
there’s interdependence. And the interdependence
of Europe by 1914 had become profound. And all European
nations lived in terror of all other European nations. This is an important
story, because when we talk about the
European vision, that they will create an entity
so interdependent on each other it will make war
impossible, we really have to read Norman
Angell– a brilliant man who proved with
mathematical precision that World War I
couldn’t happen. He missed. He got the math right. What he missed was human
nature, that you fear the thing that you depend on the most. Europe was a glittering
place in 1913. It stood astride
the entire world. There was no part of
the world that had not been either occupied at one
time by them, still occupied by Europeans, or under
such heavy influence that may as well have been occupied. And there was no
reasonable person who could imagine what
was about to happen, because what began in 1941
was 100 years– I’m sorry. 31 years of hell, of
unbelievable slaughter between 1914– MALE SPEAKER: You went from
1913 and then you said, 1941. Did you mean to say 1913? GEORGE FRIEDMAN: I meant
to say from 1914 to 1945. Thank you. As I make these
mistakes, let me know. In those years
from 1914 to 1945, about 100 million Europeans
died of political causes. First World War,
Second World War, the starvations in Ukraine– the
planned political starvations, the Russian Civil
War, the Spanish Civil War, the Holocaust,
and on and on and on. This was just in Europe. Europe was a continent there
was never more than about 500 million people during this time. The population grew
back to cover it. But 100 million people died. That was far more than were
killed by Genghis Khan. But you expected
Genghis Khan to do that. That was what Genghis
Khan did for a living. He slaughtered people. But the idea that the
continent that had given you Mozart, and concert halls, and
Kant, and Rousseau– this gem of civilization, that
it could turn on itself and create the hell that I
described my father and mother living through, and the rest
of Europe lived through, this was unprecedented. I know of no example
of any empire that so rapidly destroyed itself,
not because there were external forces, but
because internally it was so unstable
and so disorderly. At the end of these
31 years, in 1945, Europe was occupied territory. It had gone from
ruling the world to being occupied by the
Americans and the Soviets. From 1945 until 1992 and the
fall of the Soviet Union, it remained occupied. Then different things
to be in the East and occupied by the Soviets,
than to be in the West. But the essence of sovereignty
is decisions of war and peace. And from 1945 to 1992, the
decision of war and peace was not made in Berlin, or
Rome, or Paris, or London. It Was made in Moscow
and Washington. If there was going
to be a war, it would happen because
they wanted it to. I should point out
at this point how incredibly,
meticulously responsible the Soviets and the Americans
were during this period. In spite of many issues,
in spite of massive armies facing each other,
and nuclear weapons, these two countries
went out of their way to make certain that
war would not break out. Imagine nuclear
weapons in the hands of the European diplomats
of 1914, or 1939. It’s interesting, because
when I go to Europe, I’m called a cowboy,
which really I’m not, because I’m European. But I’ve never met
a cowboy, either. They think of Americans
as cowboys– wild, woolly, and violent. But compared to what
the Europeans were, the Americans are pacifists. They just talk big. And this is an important
thing to remember, that the Europeans, when
left to their own devices, have historically for millennia,
been extraordinarily violent. In 1992, two things happened. The collapse of the Soviet
Union exactly 500 years after Columbus meant
that for the first time, no European power
was a global power. That was an extraordinary
change in human history. For the first time in
500 years, Europeans were not a global power. There was only one global power. It was the United States, and it
had no idea what it was doing. It didn’t want to
be a global power. It didn’t know it was
the only global power. And it had the maturity
of a 15-year-old. If you’ve ever seen a
15-year-old in the morning, they are totally self-confident
that they can do anything. They could fly a
plane if they have to. In the evening, their
girlfriend breaks up with them, and they’re suicidal. They’re bipolar by nature. As is the United
States, lost in this. But still the Europeans had
emerged with this vision that they had
entered a new truth. And that truth was
the European Union. And the European Union
was based on the idea that the Europeans had
learned their lesson. They understood
that war was bad. And they constructed something
that would be better. It’s vital to understand that
the European Union was created by the United States,
not the Europeans. Back in the 1940s
and early ’50s, it was the United States that
wanted an integrated Europe. The Europeans resisted. The United States wanted
an integrated Europe not because they
like the Europeans, but they wanted a
strong economic bulwark against the Soviet
Union, and they wanted lines who
could afford armies, and so they wanted integration. And when the idea of
integration was put forward, the French didn’t want
to work with the Germans, the English didn’t want
to work with the French, and nobody wanted to
work with the Italians. So you had this
fundamental problem. The first European
leader that accepted the idea of a European entity,
whatever it was called, was Charles de Gaulle. And he accepted it not for
the reason you might think. He accepted it because if
there was an integrated Europe, France would be a leading
power, in his mind. France could steer
this entity into being a counterweight to
the United States. And Europe could
return to history. That was the theory. Over time, the Europeans
adopted this idea. They first struggled against it. Then they adopted it. And there was two
European Unions. One was the outer seven. The other was the inner six. And it developed
onward until it became, in 1992– the same year
the Soviet Union fell, the Maastricht Treaty
came into force. And the Maastricht Treaty
created the modern European Union. A free trade zone
with some countries sharing in a common currency
and a regulatory apparatus in Brussels. It was, according to it’s
official doctrine, based on peace and prosperity,
not the pursuit of happiness, which is to say,
not the American principle that you’re promised
nothing except the right to try to be happy. The Europeans
promised happiness. They had to, because
they were terrified of what would happen otherwise. So the question
then became, what happens if you can’t
get prosperity? What happens to peace? But from 1992 to
2008, it was a period of extraordinary economic
prosperity in the world. And all of the flaws, all the
problems, embedded in Europe were hidden. You couldn’t see them. Then in 2008, in seven weeks,
the world transformed itself. Between August 8, 2008,
and September 15, 2008. On August 8, 2008, the
Russians invaded Georgia. This did several things. One, it re-announced,
history may not be over. The Russians have
returned to history. Why did the Russians
invade Georgia? The United States
was busy staging, the Russians felt, orange
revolutions everywhere. One of them was in the Ukraine. And this bears what
is happening today. And the Russians felt
there’s only one reason to stage a pro-Western
uprising in the Ukraine– you plan to seize the
Ukraine and attack Russia. At this time, the
United States was bogged down in Iraq
and Afghanistan. And that really
wasn’t on their minds. But it was on the Russian minds. And the invasion of
Georgia was designed to deliver this
message– Georgia was aligned with
the United States. This is what an American
guarantee is worth. And that message was not
for the Georgians alone, but was especially to the
Ukrainians, to the Kazaks, to the Azerbaijanis, we’re
back and we reframed history. And suddenly the idea
of perpetual peace– which had never existed in
Europe because at the same time that Maastricht was
going on, 100,000 people died in Yugoslavia– which
the Europeans explained as they always
explain the Balkans, it’s not really Europe. But of course it is. And 40,000 people
died in the Caucasus during the war between
Azerbaijan and Armenia. War was nibbling at
the edges of Europe. And that war that we
talk about now starts. There. But the more critical
thing that happened, happened seven weeks later. Lehman Brothers collapsed. And with the collapse of Lehman
Brothers, a series of events unfolds that brings
us to today’s crisis– this week’s crisis,
Greeks I should say. For the United States, this
was the fourth crisis– a financial crisis–
since World War II. There was a municipal
bond crisis. There was the third
world debt crisis. There was the savings
and loan crisis. And now the subprime crisis. And the United States
knew how to handle this. The head of the Federal
Reserve Bank, the secretary of treasury, and eight
bankers got into a room– broke every law on
the books, there was no justification for
these people to be in a room together– and made a deal. And there’s a way that
Americans handle this. First, the financial
community behaves with absolute irresponsibility. The federal government
bails them out. And then the financial community
condemns the federal government for irresponsibility. This is an American sport. And we go through it
over and over again. The problem with Europe
was that they had never gone through a financial crisis. They’d never done it before. They had no model. They had no kind
of expectations. No one was cutting them
slack to get out of it. But more than
that, the Americans had had one Fed chairman, one
secretary of the treasury, and eight banks. Well, the Europeans
had eight banks. The Europeans had one ECB. But they had over 20
finance ministers. And try to get them together
into a room to settle anything. The subprime crisis shook
the European banking system. They bought lousy paper. And the Europeans
always accuse– saying, the Americans started this. My point is, hey, idiot. Why’d you buy it? The point is that the Europeans
will point to everyone else. But they bought it. And it shook the
financial system. And that revealed the
fundamental fault line of European reality. Germany is the world’s
fourth largest economy. It exports almost
50% of its GDP. That is, 50% of its GDP, half
of its GDP, comes from exports. Half of those exports go to
the European Free Trade Zone. A little over half. With that sort of
constant surge of exports, it is almost impossible
for European countries om the periphery to develop. Imagine if the United States
exported 50% of its GDP, and depended on that. And half of it would go
to Canada and Mexico. What would the condition
of Canada and Mexico be? This is what the Germans do. Their industrial plan,
their economic plan, is far greater than it
can consume domestically. If they don’t
export, they’re going to have massive unemployment
and economic instability. They must export. And for them, The European
Union was a system for maintaining their exports. First, they had access
to all these markets as if it were their own. Second, they had the political
power the price the Euro at exactly the point they
wanted to prevent inflation but facilitate exports. Whereas the southern
Europeans had to have some much lower price. They couldn’t get it. Finally, they created a
reality through Brussels. Just as Washington
creates regulations, Brussels creates regulations. And the Brussels regulations,
plus the tax structure of Europe, made entrepreneurial
activity impossible. Entrepreneurial activity
in the United States is possible first, because
the tax structure is such that if you happen to hit a
home run, you’re gonna enjoy it. The tax structure in
Europe is confiscatory at a certain level, so the
risk/reward ratio isn’t there. Secondly, they developed
rules and regulations on everything from human
resources to health care. In the United States, if
you try to be entrepreneur, it doesn’t work, you go
bankrupt, you walk away. When I started Strafor, I
didn’t know what I was doing. But if I had failed, I
could put it behind me. In Europe, you
don’t hire people. You adopt them. They live with you forever. It takes you a
long time to unwind entrepreneurial activity. And so one of the
things that happened here was that the European
1950s corporation was never challenged like
the American was. It never was challenged
because there was no Google coming up at them. Siemens was impervious. And that was no accident. It was built that way. And the reason that Europeans
came after both Microsoft and Google on antitrust
and regulatory issues was to make it more
and more difficult for them to operate in Europe. Because for Germany, Siemens
and the large corporations were social– their system
of social nets under them. You got a job at Siemens. You got promoted. You rose in the systems. You did in 1950s. It was social stability. It was inefficient, but
it soaked up excess labor. What happened in
the other countries? What happened in countries
like Romania or Italy? Because it was impossible to
be legally entrepreneurial, you became illegally
entrepreneurial. You lived on the margins. And in living on the
margins in these countries, the government knew
you were doing it. They knew you weren’t
paying taxes– not the Romanians,
or the Greeks, or the Italians who wanted
to pay taxes anyway. But you’re certainly not going
to pay taxes if you’re illegal. But the government wanted you
to do it to maintain employment. Because the German
pressure was so heavy, and the Germans are coming
in and buying all assets that are worth anything, that
you have to be off the books. As a result you wound up
with a sovereign debt crisis. That is to say, because the tax
base couldn’t support repayment after the subprime
crisis, the banking system now faced a second major
crisis, a bigger one. The bonds that governments
had sold couldn’t be redeemed. And then a question came up,
how do we solve this problem? And there were two
solutions to this. One solution was that Germany,
leading northern European countries, would
underwrite the bad debts. And the other was that
we would impose austerity on the southern
European countries. And the Germans thought
about this for three minutes. And they said, I think we
should impose austerity. And the Eurocrats– that thin
layer of financial people, journalists, and so
on– accepted this idea that we’ll force
them to pay it back. They’ll have a bad time. And then it’ll all
straighten out. What they didn’t realize
was the massive consequences that they would set off. And the IIMF has now admitted
that they didn’t get it. In Greece, unemployment
is now 26%. In Spain it is 23%. In Southern Italy it is 22%. In central France it is 20%. In other words– and I should
add– unemployment for those 25 years or less is 50% to 60%. These are the same numbers that
existed in the United States during the Great Depression. This is a depression
in southern Europe. Where Germany has
5% unemployment, southern Europe
is in depression. And this is a depression that
it can’t easily recover from. What this has now become
is not a financial problem, it’s a political issue. When the very poor
become poor, it hurts. But they understand
the grammar of poverty, the structure of what
it means to be poor. The people who were hit
in the government cutbacks were doctors, engineers, they
were the professional classes, who in Europe are heavily
employed by the state, because the state has
a much broader reach. So, and you have a
national health system, and you cut everybody’s salary
by 50%, you’re cutting doctors. When the middle class, which
has a clear expectation of what Europe would mean for them,
that they would have if you’re Romanian and you’re Italian,
and you come into the EU, you will have a European life. And it’s defined by Germany,
maybe not as well as Germany, but still, you’ll
have a European life. And you’ll realize over
time that that life is gone. So if you were 40
years old in 2008, and you started
to lose your job, and your salary was being cut
from 3,000 Euros to 800 Euros– as happened in some
people’s case– if you go down this list,
what happens to you? You suddenly realize
at a certain point it’s not going to get better. You suddenly realize
that this is not ending. This is not a cyclical thing. That’s not temporary. I’ve been doing this
for seven years. And the problem is not that
some Think Tank in Brussels didn’t think up the solution,
it is that the Germans cannot afford to change their behavior
because of what they would suffer, and therefore we’re
locked into this position. And that leads to what happens
whenever the middle classes are devastated. The rise of radical
parties, particularly of the right wing,
because you have to find an explanation
for what’s wrong. And what the answer you find
is that someone caused it. And we must protect ourselves
from that by nationalism, by closing our borders,
and the Muslims are a particular problem. And by the way, the
Jews are a problem too. And you come up with a solution
that the middle class comes up with when they’ve
lost everything. And one of things that the
European elite never got was that as they were
stabilizing their banks, they were creating a system
of political backlash that would threaten the entire
system they had created. They thought they could keep
everybody in their place. And of course, when
you’re devastated like the Europeans were,
you can’t keep everybody in their place. And everybody came
out of their place. And so what we see
now in Europe is the rise of brand new parties. In Greece, it was
a left wing party, which has the same position
as a right wing party, but they don’t dislike Muslims. That’s the difference. But these are parties
that are basically saying, we’re not going to pay you back. The Hungarians pioneered this. They gave mortgages
out– Austrian banks, Italian banks– gave
mortgages denominated in Euro, in Swiss francs, in
yen, anything you want. Low cost. But nobody counted on
the forint collapsing. The Hungarian government
went to the banks and said on behalf of
their mortgage holders, we’re gonna pay you
back in forints. And we’re gonna give you
about $0.60 on the dollar. Or we’ll give you nothing. Give me a call in the morning
and tell me what you want. In other words, the debtor,
when he owes enough money, controls the situation,
not the lender. Old story. I I owe you $100, you’ve got me. If I owe you a billion
dollars, I’ve got you. And what the Southern European
countries are realizing is one, they cannot live with the
situation that’s been created. That default is better
than not default. And secondly,
Germany can’t afford to let them default, for
all the bluffing going on. Germany can’t afford this. They need to keep
the free trade zone. We saw this recently
in quantitative easing, which is a very nice
term for printing money. I like it. Printing money was
printed by the ECB, but it was administered
by national banks. Why? Because the national
banks could only buy paper from their own
country, which means default could not affect
Germany or others. But also, none of the
European countries trusted the European
Central Bank to be impartial, to buy
the papers they had to. We’re now back at
the Nation State. And in Europe, when you’re
back at the Nation State, you’re at a dangerous point. The United States had
a very similar problem. And the problem the
United States had was in 1861, a vast dispute
on all sorts of issues between the South in the North. And the South said,
we could withdraw from the American Union. And the result was a Civil War
in which hundreds of thousands of Americans on both
sides gave their life, and the Battle of Gettysburg
fought to save the Union. Antietam and other places. Who will die to save
the European Union? How could Europe create a
grand RB of the Republic? It has no moral promise
except prosperity and peace. You can’t die for
prosperity and peace. For life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness, we hold these truths
to be self evident that all men are created equal. There is a moral component. And you’ve been demonstrated
that moral component. We fought the Civil War
and saved the Republic. The Europeans have
no moral component. They only have a
prudential component. And the fact that
they fear each other, dislike each other, for a
very good reasons going back many years. My mother never
forgave the Romanians, and I have no idea what the
Romanians ever did to her. But it doesn’t matter. If they didn’t do
it to her, it was her great, great grandmother. These are countries that are
different, do not share faiths, and have never held together. And we are now at the beginning
where it’s all coming apart. And already we hear
the guns in Ukraine. So all of the promises that
were made are in question. And when Europe goes into
question, the world trembles. Let me stop there and
ask for questions. Thank you. AUDIENCE: So are you
kind of– your theory is that if there would be
a large hegemonic power in the room, similar to like,
the United States, in Europe still, this issue
wouldn’t happen. So if the Cold War never
ended, and the Berlin Wall didn’t fall, this
wouldn’t be an issue. GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Yeah. I mean, the reason
that Europe did not have a World War
III among itself, is that it was occupied by
the Americans and Soviets, and they didn’t
want to have one. But it’s not simply a
question of somebody having hegemonic power. There’s a dynamic in
Europe between Germany and the rest of Europe
that’s in play here. Ever since 1871,
when Germany unified, Germany has been the most
dynamic economic power in Europe, and scare the
hell out of everybody. The German question has always
been unlike the British, they have no empire
to sell it to. They are incredibly creative,
incredibly efficient, and very aggressive. This time they don’t
have an army yet, which is the good news. But they’re still
behaving in the same way. Ever since Germany united,
Europe destabilized. And while the United States
occupied the Western half, and the Soviets the Eastern
half, it was a moot question. Now the Europeans have to
work it out themselves. And they never have easily. AUDIENCE: What’s so special
about the Germans, then? Why have they succeeded
after World War II, when the Southern European
countries did not? GEORGE FRIEDMAN: That’s
an extremely good question to which I don’t
have a good answer. But it’s one on which
Max Weber and many people wrote, “Protestant Ethic and
the Spirit of Capitalism.” It has to do, I think, with
the fact that when it’s united, it unites well. In other words, unlike Italy
where the northern Italians still don’t get along with
the southern Italians, the Bavarians and the
rest of the Germans, you know, Munich and Frankfurt
and Berlin all unite, they are also
culturally vigorous. And they’re also scared. One of things about
the Germans is they remember the
period for hundreds of years when they
were fragmented into many small nations. And their terror is that
it’s going to happen again. And they keep losing war,
so the terror is real. They therefore
create states that are very effective in mobilizing
economic activity to build economic activity. I think this is an
insufficient answer, but it’s the only answer I have. But empirically, we know
that Germany does do this. And while I can’t
fully explain it, I can say it is a
dynamic of Europe that’s empirically clear. AUDIENCE: How do
you feel a Marshall Plan might have
played into this? Has the United States
overdone the effort of rebuilding Germany
at the expense of other countries
in the region? GEORGE FRIEDMAN:
The United States had to rebuild them, because
the Cold War required first, that the West be
self-sufficient– Western Europe be self-sufficient,
and secondly, that they have substantial arms. Once you begin the
process of rebuilding, it take on a life of its own. It doesn’t end,
and shouldn’t end. That was the entire idea. There is no way of
limiting prosperity. Now the countries
that the United States is most concerned
with is Germany, because it’s right on the
front line in the Cold War. And of course, France. And to a lesser extent, Britain. Britain was very bitter that
it wasn’t the forerunner. And Italy, because both of them
have strong Communist parties. Greece, Spain, it had
much less to do with. But it was really the
North European plain that the Americans
were obsessed with, because if the Soviets
attacked, that’s where the attack would come. And that’s where they
had to have blockers. So certainly the Marshall
Plan kicked off this process. But it wasn’t that the
United States could limit it. Once you put the Germans back
to work, they’re back to work. And they work well. And so Americans like to
moralize whose fault it is. This is not anyone’s fault. It’s not the Germans’ fault. They’re not greedy or vicious. It’s not the Southern
Europeans’ fault. It is the nature
built into Europe. So I would argue– and
that’s an important point I want to make– is there’s
no blaming the Germans. They are in the
position they’re in. And they have to deal with it. There’s no blaming, in
my mind, the Greeks. There’s no blaming the Russians. We are all playing out the
hand that we have to play out. And unfortunately, in
the case of Europe, this hand frequently
winds up in a bad place. AUDIENCE: Could you
comment on your thoughts of the influence of
US foreign policy right now in Europe,
because there are some lines of thoughts
about US foreign policy being interested in taking
Europe down a notch, Europe becoming too strong. And specifically, US influence
in the Ukraine crisis. GEORGE FRIEDMAN: I
don’t see the US have the ability of taking
down Europe a notch. Europeans are doing
what they’re doing. There’s very little
that the United States could do to take it
down, if they want to. The problem of
Europe is that having bought into peace
and prosperity, they essentially– many of them
dismantle their militaries. So NATO no longer functions. It’s a military
alliance, but you can’t have one if
there’s no military. So France has a military. Britain has a military. But the rest of the
countries really don’t. The United States looks
at Europe and says, I think, reluctantly,
there is no Europe here. There is Paris. There is Berlin. There’s Spain. And they all have very
different policies. So we have no one to talk to. We talk to the British. We talk to the French. But now we have a
crisis in the Ukraine. From the Russian point of
view, as I said before, they read this as a coup
d’etat by the United States, taking the elected
president of Ukraine, changing the Constitution
on Sunday morning, and impeaching him, and imposing
a pro-Western government. From the American point of view,
he was corrupt and oppressive. And people rose against it. Philosophy aside,
Ukraine is fundamental to the national
interest of Russia. This is where the
Wehrmacht was destroyed. This is where they
perceive themselves. This is a place that is
70 miles from Stalingrad. And 300 miles from Moscow. It has no natural defenses. They need the Ukraine,
because if Ukraine becomes part of a Western
defense system, everything in Russian
history tells them that whatever they think
now, later they will do what they want. Remember, Russia had Germany–
a weak, shattered country in 1932. By 1938, it was the most
powerful country in Europe. So the Russians have that view. The Americans also
have a 100-year history of one overriding
geopolitical interest– not allowing a regional hegemon
to control all of Europe. I went into the first
World War to stop that. It went into the Second
World War to stop that. It went into the Cold
War to stop that. There are many
crazy things we do. We invade Panama,
for some reason, that I could never figure out. And things of that sort. But these are trivial things. The fundamental things
that the Americans do is control the seas, and
watch the European peninsula for hegemon. If Russia takes Ukraine,
whatever the Russian intention is, the Americans think,
what will they do next? And so you have two countries. Now, the American’s General
Hodges, a US Army Europe commander, visited
Kiev, said there would be traders
coming in officially. Only unofficial now. Pin medals on Ukrainian
soldiers who fought well, which is symbolically stunning. And then announce that we would
preposition armor, artillery, and other weapons in the
Baltics, Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria. So I mean, that is
quite an announcement for the United States to
make in the past two weeks. Then Kerry is announcing
a very aggressive policy. Biden is saying the same thing. So if you’re the Russians,
you’re coming to the conclusion that the United States
means to seize the Ukraine, and that means the end of
the Russian Federation, from their point of view. They have a window
of opportunity, because it will take the
Americans six months to a year to have any meaningful
force in the area. It is now the rainy season
where the roads are mud. That will end in
four to six weeks. And then we will see. In the meantime, Frau Merkel,
who really doesn’t need this aggravation right now. It has enough problems
trying to hold the European Union together. It really doesn’t need
a war in the Ukraine to make its life miserable. Is in Moscow today with
French President Hollande. And they’re trying to get
Putin to listen to reason. But the Western reason
and the Russian reason are very different. The Russians, said to me–
I was in Moscow recently– and the Russians
said to me, look. We want this much. We’ll give up Crimea, if that’s
what is really bothering you. But we want in Eastern Ukraine. It could be part of
the Ukraine but it should be an autonomous zone. And they use this
like Quebec in Canada. OK. It speaks a different
language, so on. The United States is
absolutely opposed to this. And the Russian view is,
why would the United States be opposed to it? And therefore each side
is reading the other. And this is how wars start. Except neither side
wants a war, believe me. But the Europeans are
irrelevant to this. Merkel could go to Moscow. She has no force. She has no army. The Europeans are
playing a role that they played in the Cold War. They’re inert. And that’s what’s
so interesting. This is a war that the
European Union should be busy not fighting about
putting down or making whatever arrangement they want. But they’re in no position
to do what the Russians need, pulling them out of a
recession, depression, whatever you want to call it. So what you see here is that
unless the United States goes in, no one will go in. If the United States goes
in, then the Russians freak. If the Russians go in,
the Americans freak. And the Europeans
are primarily worried about who pays what bond when. So you have a total
asymmetry of interests and the kind of
intellectual chaos. AUDIENCE: So are we playing
to Putin’s advantage? I mean, sort of pretending
to be aggressive, or acting aggressive. I mean, isn’t that helping
Putin get stronger? GEORGE FRIEDMAN:
Well, the alternative is not to be aggressive, let
the Russians move forward, and occupy a position
bordering Romania, Hungary, Poland, and so on. So think about the run up
to World War II in Japan. The United States cut off the
sale of oil to the Japanese. It also went about buying up
oil in the Netherlands, East Indies– Indonesia
today– to keep the Japanese from buying it. The United States was
doing that because we wanted the Japanese to
pull out of Indochina. The view was that if we
do this, the Japanese will be under
tremendous pressure. The Japanese view was, if
we get into this pressure, there’ll be more pressure. And we’re accepting
the fact that we exist at the sufferings
of the United States. The result was Pearl Harbor. Wars don’t originate with
some crazed mastermind. Even Hitler was bluffing
until his bluff was called. And once his bluff
was called in Poland, he either went or he didn’t go. If he didn’t go, there
would be consequences. So we went hoping that it
wouldn’t mean anything. Wars begin with bluffing. And just like in a poker
game, at a certain point, you have to flip your cards. We’re in the bluffing stage. And each side is hoping not
have to flip their cards. Neither the Russians
nor the Americans have any appetite for war
in the Ukraine, believe me. But that’s not how wars begin. I don’t think there will be one. I think they’ll find
a way to back off. But actually, when
you play it out, it’s hard to find that
place where they go. MALE SPEAKER: Please
join me in thanking George Friedman for
his [INAUDIBLE]. [APPLAUSE]

Rose Valland Takes On the Nazis (feat. Tiffany Haddish) – Drunk History


– Back in the day
when I used to date
drug dealers
and gang bangers, I make a dude color
and if you stay in the lines, you know what I’m saying?
– That’s–[laughs] – You know, one of ’em
hit me up from jail and he was like, you know,
my most happiest memory of being free is when
you invite me to your place and I thought I was
gonna hit it, and I’m coloring in this book.
I had this coloring book. [both laughing] The whole messed up thing
about it is, I never did get to hit it.
I was like, ’cause you was
outside the lines, homie. – [laughs]
– Outside the lines. Hi.
Hello. [laughs] I’m Tiffany Haddish, and today
we’re gonna talk about Rose Valland. [slurps] ♪ She ready ♪So, it’s France,
October 1940.
Rose Valland,
the assistant curator
with the Jeu de Paume Museum,she’s like,
you know what I know?
Art.Then all of a sudden, boom.
Nazis everywhere.They took over the museum
like, this our spot!
This where we ‘gon be at!
Ayy!
[laughs]
She’s like, oh, shoot,
it’s Germans everywhere.And what they doing is,
robbing the French Jewsand now they storing all
this stolen art up in there.
And you know why?
You know why? – Hm.
– Do you know why? Let me tell you why.
Because Hitlerwas like a proclaimed artistand he tried
to get into this school.
He was denied because
he couldn’t stay in the lines. – Uh-oh.
– He told his boys,y’all go out there
and y’all get all the artwork.
Now, if it’s German art,
it’s good,
but if it ain’t German art,
burn that shit up.
‘Cause Hitler was mad
’cause he didn’t to get in to the university. ‘Cause you mad you didn’t get
to get in to school. My [bleep] wet.
Don’t worry about it. – [laughs]
– But, Rose is like,the dopest spy.
They up there talking…
[imitates German]They didn’t know
she spoke German.
She like this,
hmm.Taking notes.
Taking notes. Taking notes.
Okay?
So, uh…
different people that worked
under Hitler
would show up
to the museum often.
Like his main man.His name was
Hermann Goring, right?
Now, Hermann, you know,
he so ratchet.– [laughs]
– He like, gimme.
That’s the best!
Run me that!
Run me that right there.
Ooh, that’s nice.
Hey, hey, hey,
give me something to drink.
Bring me some champagne
up in here
while I’m in here picking
the best art.
And Rose would be like…[in French accent]
I don’t know why
these [bleep] are here.
He’s so lazy.
[normal]
Why you even wanna tell me
where you stole it from?Do you know who I am?I’ma–I’ma–
I’ma tell er’body.
She go get the wine
and Hermann be like,
Oh…
[slurps] Magnifique! This is a–
Oh, no, wait, no. He was German.
He be like…[slurps][imitates German]
Delicious!
– [laughs]
– Right? You know. [laughs]
Wait, hold up.
I’m toasted. I’m sorry.
– How you feel? – I feel…fantastic. – [laughs] – Anyways, they would loadthese pieces of art up
on the train.
The Nazis
was putting a lot of stuff
down in these deep,
dark caves.
You hiding stuff in caves?You hiding…freaking…van Goghs in a coal mine?That’s disrespectful.And Rose would be like,
I’ma memorize this.
I’m “memorinizing”
all of it.
Sounding ghetto as hell.
– [laughs]
[both laughing] Did you know I was Jewish?
– I didn’t until tonight. – ‘Cause my father’s Jewish, but my mama’s
a Jehovah’s Witness. So I’m a JewJo. [both laugh] So, uh, it’s December 1944,James Rorimer shows uptrying to holla at Rose.Rose,
I know you know everything.
I need you to get me
all the information
that you have.
Where are all the treasures.
She’s like,
I don’t know you like that.
Who is you?He’s like, I’m James Rorimer.I’m with the Monuments Men.Now this was a collection
of men and womens
who went out to save the
existence of their culture.
Rose, she was dope.
She was like, boom.I got these
addresses right here.
Check this out.
They would stop trains,
they would go to salt mines,they was knocking–
knocking people out. Some people died,
some people lived,but the art was saved.She saved like over
60,000 pieces of culture.
She’s a heroine.[epic music]And then finally Rose is like,
go to Hermann Goring’s house.
Sent him over there, boom.$200 million worthof treasures, culture, art.She hooked that up,and Hermann Goring
was pissed as hell at her.
Like, I can’t believe
she snitched on me!
And when she was bringing me
all these
glasses of champagne.And then Rose does the Nay Nay.Eh!
[laughs]
But he couldn’t do
nothing about it,’cause now
he a prisoner of war.
And Hitler killed himself…they say.I think he hanging out
with Tupac.[hip-hop music][laughing] [both laughing]♪ ♪

Arthur Brooks on why we hate our political enemies — and how to stop


JUDY WOODRUFF: On our bookshelf tonight, a
conversation with Arthur Brooks, who was, until this month, the president of the American
Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank. I spoke with him recently about his latest
book, “Love Your Enemies.” He started by explaining how he came to study
the science behind a concept as old as the Scriptures. ARTHUR BROOKS, Author, “Love Your Enemies”:
What really set me on this beat was reading an article about something called motive attribution
asymmetry, where two sides in a conflict both believe that they’re motivated by love, but
the other side is motivated by hatred. There’s the same level of this that we see
between the Palestinians and Israelis. And this is the reason we have a standoff. Nobody’s persuading anybody. We need a new solution. JUDY WOODRUFF: So the animosity between the
Palestinians and the Israelis, you’re saying, is what exists between ordinary Americans. My question is, when did differences, which
are part of democracy, become contempt, which is part of your title? ARTHUR BROOKS: This has been going back a
decade or so. But it’s been exacerbated in particular since
the 2016 election, where people don’t just disagree with each other. They treat each other utterly dismissively,
as if somebody were worthless if they disagreed with the other person. And, of course, this comes from leaders. We have leaders who treat each other with
contempt. But I think leaders in a capitalist democratic
culture tend to be downstream from what other people are seeing. We’re being manipulated largely by media,
by politics, even by academia, where it’s — where we’re told that it’s OK to hate our
enemies. JUDY WOODRUFF: So is that who’s to blame? I mean, it’s the leaders, it’s the media,
and all of us? ARTHUR BROOKS: Well, what I talk about in
this book is that — and there’s very clear data that 93 percent of Americans hate how
divided we have become. That doesn’t mean that we agree with each
other. On the contrary, we shouldn’t agree with each
other, because we have a competition of ideas. That’s a good thing. But the other 7 percent, they’re getting rich
and powerful and famous or just getting satisfaction and followers on social media by saying it’s
OK to hate each other. Now, this is insane, of course. Nobody in history has ever been persuaded
by insults. And it’s immoral to hate each other as well
simply because of political disagreements. JUDY WOODRUFF: But — and you write in great
detail throughout the book about examples of how people relate to each other. But some of these disagreements that people
have, have had and have today are fundamental. They’re over values, over issues of life and
death, abortion, and so on. ARTHUR BROOKS: Right. JUDY WOODRUFF: I mean, these are not things
that people can just suddenly say… ARTHUR BROOKS: Yes, that’s true. JUDY WOODRUFF: … oh, it doesn’t matter to
me. ARTHUR BROOKS: These are big issues. That’s true. And, sometimes, people will ask me, so what
about people who deserve my contempt? What about people who say truly hateful things? And one of the questions I ask is, what do
you want? Do you want to exile that person, put them
in jail or hurt that person? And the answer is, of course not. I’m a horrible person. So how is your hate working out, if what you
want to do is persuade somebody and make them think and act differently? You have zero chance of doing so if contempt
is your modus operandi. JUDY WOODRUFF: But you also hear people say
today, I don’t want to have anything to do with someone who I think is a racist or someone
who I think is — believes in communism. I mean, there are, again, fundamental value
differences between people. ARTHUR BROOKS: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: And I guess the question is,
don’t people have a right to say, I don’t want to have anything to do with that? ARTHUR BROOKS: Sure. We can absolutely do that. And we form communities where we don’t — we
don’t associate with other people. But, in point of fact, the greatness of the
United States is persuading each other and making progress in terms of our values. And the only way that I can do that, if I’m
firmly convinced that my ideas are right, are by showing love to other people, and especially
love when I’m treated with hatred. Now, I understand that’s hard. I get that it’s a hard thing to do. But I show the science in this book, that,
if you want to persuade, it’s the only way. And Martin Luther King used to say that. You can only redeem a man when you love a
man. If you want to be happier, I have the science
that shows that you will be happier if you answer contempt with warmheartedness. And you have a shot at bringing more unity
to the country, which 93 percent of us say that we want. It’s a win-win-win. JUDY WOODRUFF: What are practical steps that
you believe we can take to have less contempt? ARTHUR BROOKS: One of the first things that
I suggest, that people stop being used by the outrage industrial complex and politics
and media, even on college campuses, where are being taught by leaders that it’s OK to
hate. When you hate, somebody else is profiting. And so it’s important for us to look at the
people on our own side who are telling us it’s OK to hate and cross them off the list. Stop reading the columnist who always scratches
that itch. Stop watching the show. People should be watching the “NewsHour,”
not the shows that are actually firing up their hostility. It’s not helping us at all. The second is to look for contempt, because
that’s an opportunity to persuade and be happier, to go out looking for the hatred, so that
we can answer it with love. And I give examples on how to do it. It’s a very practical book. It’s a solutions-based book. It shows the how-to on how to do it. JUDY WOODRUFF: So you started out talking
about the responsibility of our leaders who are setting an example. ARTHUR BROOKS: Right. JUDY WOODRUFF: President Trump is clearly
part of this. ARTHUR BROOKS: For sure. JUDY WOODRUFF: How — can change happen while
our leaders are setting an example themselves of contempt? ARTHUR BROOKS: In a democratic society, in
a capitalist culture, our leaders actually are followers. They tend to be a consequence, not a cause
of our actions. They do affect us, and they do affect our
culture, to be sure. But what’s happening in democratic societies
and with democratic elections is that leaders see a parade going down the street, and they
jump out in front of it to be the leader. If we want something better, each one of us
needs to take a different path. That’s the reason — I started off writing
this book as an institutional book, how to make better politics and better culture. I wound up writing a book about how each one
of us can individually be a better person. And that’s how we get it. It’s true that Democratic and Republican leaders
today have a big problem of treating other people with contempt, because that’s, they
believe, their secret to success. Let’s make it not the secret to their success,
and you will quickly see a difference in behavior among journalists, among other members of
the media, certainly among politicians, academics, leaders, people who actually get followers
on social media. They will fall in line. JUDY WOODRUFF: You make it sound easy. ARTHUR BROOKS: It’s — it’s hard. And the hardest thing, of course, is to conquer
one’s own self. I have talked about this a great deal with
his holiness the Dalai Lama, who’s somebody who has had a huge influence on me, that I
have worked with and written with, who is a teacher to me. And the Dalai Lama says, conquer yourself. Are you the master or the slave of your own
feelings? And that’s the real challenge, is not changing
all of society. The real challenge is saying, am I strong
enough to conquer my own heart? JUDY WOODRUFF: Arthur Brooks. The title of the book is “Love Your Enemies:
How Decent People Can Save America from the Culture of Contempt.” Thank you. ARTHUR BROOKS: Thank you, Judy.

LEARN ENGLISH | SHASHI THAROOR: Britain owes reparations to India (English Subtitles)


Madam President and gentlemen, ladies of the
house. I standing here with eight minutes in my hands
in this venerable and rather magnificent institution, I was going to assure you that I belong to
the Henry VIII School of public speaking – that as Henry VIII said to his wives ‘I shall not
keep you long’. But now finding myself the seventh speaker
out of eight in what must already seem a rather long evening to you I rather feel like Henry
VIII’s the last wife. I know more or less of what expected of me
but I am not sure how to do it any differently. Perhaps what I should do is really try and
pay attention to the arguments that have advanced by the Opposition today. We had for example Sir Richard Ottaway suggesting
– challenging the very idea that it could be argued that the economic situation of the
colonies was actually worsened by the experience of British colonialism. Well I stand to offer you the Indian example,
Sir Richard. India share of the world economy when Britain
arrived on it’s shores was 23 per cent, by the time the British left it was down to below
4 per cent. Why? Simply because India had been governed for
the benefit of Britain. Britain’s rise for 200 years was financed
by it’s depredations in India. In fact Britain’s industrial revolution was
actually premised upon the de-industrialisation of India. The handloom weaver’s for example famed across
the world whose products were exported around the world, Britain came right in. There were actually these weaver’s making
fine muslin as light as woven wear, it was said, and Britain came right in, smashed their
thumbs, broke their looms, imposed tariffs and duties on their cloth and products and
started, of course, taking their raw material from India and shipping back manufactured
cloth flooding the world’s markets with what became the products of the dark and satanic
mills of the Victoria in England. That meant that the weavers in India became
beggars and India went from being a world famous exporter of finished cloth into an
importer when from having 27 per cent of the world trade to less than 2 per cent. Meanwhile, colonialists like Robert Clive
brought their rotten boroughs in England on the proceeds of their loot in India while
taking the Hindi word loot into their dictionary as well as their habits. And the British had the gall to call him Clive
of India as if he belonged to the country, when all he really did was to ensure that
much of the country belonged to him. By the end of 19th century, the fact is that
India was already Britain’s biggest cash cow, the world’s biggest purchaser of British goods
and exports and the source for highly paid employment for British civil servants. We literally paid for our own oppression. And as has been pointed out, the worthy British
Victorian families that made their money out of the slave economy, one fifth of the elites
of the wealthy class in Britain in 19th century owed their money to transporting 3 million
Africans across the waters. And in fact in 1833 when slavery was abolished
and what happened was a compensation of 20 million pounds was paid not as reparations
to those who had lost their lives or who had suffered or been oppressed by slavery but
to those who had lost their property. I was struck by the fact that your Wi-Fi password
at this Union commemorates the name of Mr Gladstone – the great liberal hero. Well, I am very sorry his family was one of
those who benefited from this compensation. Staying with India between 15-29 million Indians
died of starvation in British induced famines. The most famous example was, of course, was
the great Bengal famine during the World War II when 4 million people died because Winston
Churchill deliberately as a matter of written policy proceeded to divert essential supplies
from civilians in Bengal to sturdy tummies and Europeans as reserve stockpiles. He said that the starvation of anyway underfed
Bengalis mattered much less than that of sturdy Greeks’ – Churchill’s actual quote. And when conscious stricken British officials
wrote to him pointing out that people were dying because of this decision, he peevishly
wrote in the margins of file, “Why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?” So, all notions that the British were trying
to do their colonial enterprise out of enlightened despotism to try and bring the benefits of
colonialism and civilisation to the benighted. Even I am sorry – Churchill’s conduct in 1943
is simply one example of many that gave light to this myth. As others have said on the proposition – violence
and racism were the reality of the colonial experience. And no wonder that the sun never set on the
British empire because even god couldn’t trust the English in the dark. Let me take the World War I as a very concrete
example since the first speaker Mr. Lee suggested these couldn’t be quantified. Let me quantify World War I for you. Again I am sorry from an Indian perspective
as others have spoken abut the countries. One-sixth of all the British forces that fought
in the war were Indian – 54 000 Indians actually lost their lives in that war, 65 000 were
wounded and another 4000 remained missing or in prison. Indian taxpayers had to cough up a 100 million
pounds in that time’s money. India supplied 17 million rounds of ammunition,
6,00,000 rifles and machine guns, 42 million garments were stitched and sent out of India
and 1.3 million Indian personnel served in this war. I know all this because the commemoration
of the centenary has just taken place. But not just that, India had to supply 173,000
animals 370 million tonnes of supplies and in the end the total value of everything that
was taken out of India and India by the way was suffering from recession at that time
and poverty and hunger, was in today’s money 8 billion pounds. You want quantification, it’s available. World War II, it was was even worse – 2.5
million Indians in uniform. I won’t believe it to the point but Britain’s
total war debt of 3 billion pounds in 1945 money, 1.25 billion was owed to India and
never actually paid. Somebody mentioned Scotland, well the fact
is that colonialism actually cemented your union with Scotland. The Scots had actually tried to send colonies
out before 1707, they had all failed, I am sorry to say. But, then of course, came union and India
was available and there you had a disproportionate employment of Scots, I am sorry but Mr Mckinsey
had to speak after me, engaged in this colonial enterprise as soldiers, as merchants, as agents,
as employees and their earnings from India is what brought prosperity to Scotland, even
pulled Scotland out of poverty. Now that India is no longer there, no wonder
the bonds are loosening. Now we have heard other arguments on this
side and there has been a mention of railways. Well let me tell you first of all as my colleague
the Jamaican High Commissioner has pointed out, the railways and roads were really built
to serve British interests and not those of the local people but I might add that many
countries have built railways and roads without having had to be colonalised in order to do
so. They were designed to carry raw materials
from the hinterland into the ports to be shipped to Britain. And the fact is that the Indian or Jamaican
or other colonial public – their needs were incidental. Transportation – there was no attempt made
to match supply from demand from as transports, none what so ever. Instead in fact the Indian railways were built
with massive incentives offered by Britain to British investors, guaranteed out of Indian
taxes paid by Indians with the result that you actually had one mile of Indian railway costing twice what it cost to built
the same mile in Canada or Australia because there was so much money being paid in extravagant
returns. Britain made all the profits, controlled the
technology, supplied all the equipment and absolutely all these benefits came as British
private enterprise at Indian public risk. That was the railways as an accomplishment. We are hearing about aid, I think it was Sir
Richard Ottaway mentioned British aid to India. Well let me just point out that the British
aid to India is about 0.4 per cent of India’s GDP. The government of India actually spends more
on fertiliser subsidies which might be an appropriate metaphor for that argument. If I may point out
as well that as my fellow speakers from the proposition have pointed out there have been
incidents of racial violence, of loot, of massacres, of blood shed, of transportation
and in India’s case even one of our last Mughal emperors. Yes, may be today’s Britains are not responsible
for some of these reparations but the same speakers have pointed with pride to their
foreign aid – you are not responsible for the people starving in Somalia but you give
them aid surely the principle of reparation for what is the wrongs that have done cannot
be denied. It’s been pointed out that for the example
dehumanisation of Africans in the Caribbean, the massive psychological damage that has
been done, the undermining of social traditions, of the property rights, of the authority structures
of the societies – all in the interest of British colonialism and the fact remains that
many of today’s problems in these countries including the persistence and in some cases
the creation of racial, of ethnic, of religious tensions were the direct result of colonialism. So there is a moral debt that needs to be
paid. Someone challenged reparations elsewhere. Well I am sorry Germany doesn’t just give
reparations to Israel, it also gives reparations to Poland perhaps some of the speakers here
are too young to remember the dramatic picture of Charles William Brunt on his knees in the
Walter Gaiter in 1970. There are other examples, there is Italy’s
reparations to Libya, there is Japan’s to Korea even Britain has paid reparations to
the New Zealand Maoris. So it is not as if this is something that
is unprecedented or unheard of that somehow opens some sort of nasty Pandora box. No wonder professor Louis reminded us that
he is from Texas. There is a wonderful expression in Texas that
summarises the arguments of the opposition ‘All hat and no cattle’. Now, If I can just quickly look through the
other notes that I was scribbling while they were speaking, there was a reference to democracy
and rule of law. Let me say with the greatest possible respect,
you cannot to be rich to oppress, enslave, kill, maim, torture people for 200 years and
then celebrate the fact that they are democratic at the end of it. We were denied democracy so we had to snatch
it, seize it from you with the greatest of reluctance it was considered in India’s case
after 150 years of British rule and that too with limited franchise. If I may just point out the arguments made
by a couple of speakers. The first speaker Mr. Lee in particular conceded
all the evil atrocities of the colonialism but essentially suggested that reparations
won’t really help, they won’t help the right people, they would be use of propaganda tools,
they will embolden people like Mr Mugabe. So, it’s nice how in the old days, I am sorry
to say that either people of the Caribbean used to frighten their children into behaving
and sleeping by saying some Francis Drake would come up after them that was the legacy,
now Mugabe will be there – the new sort of Francis Drake of our time. The fact is very simply said, that we are
not talking about reparations as a tool to empower anybody, they are a tool for you to
atone, for the wrongs that have been done and I am quite prepared to accept the proposition
that you can’t evaluate, put a monetary sum to the kinds of horrors people have suffered. Certainly no amount of money can expedite
the loss of a loved one as somebody pointed out there. You are not going to figure out the exact
amount but the principle is what matters. The fact is that to speak blithely of sacrifices
on both sides as an analogy was used here – a burglar comes into your house and sacks
the place but stubs his toe and you say that there was sacrifice on both sides that I am
sorry to say is not an acceptable argument. The truth is that we are not arguing specifically
that vast some of money needs to be paid. The proposition before this house is the principle
of owing reparations, not the fine points of how much is owed, to whom it should be
paid. The question is, is there a debt, does Britain
owe reparations? As far as I am concerned, the ability to acknowledge
your wrong that has been done, to simply say sorry will go a far far far longer way than
some percentage of GDP in the form of aid. What is required it seems to me is accepting
the principle that reparations are owed. Personally, I will be quiet happy if it was
one pound a year for the next 200 years after the last 200 years of Britain in India. Thank you very much madam President.

Republicans FINALLY Stand Up To Trump


>>Last week, Donald Trump announced that
the G7 summit next year will take place in one of his properties, the Doral resort. However he changed course following criticism
from members of his own party. So, he’s trying to sell this off as, I had
to change course because these Democrats they wouldn’t let it go. He doesn’t care what the Democrats think,
he’s never cared what the Democrats think. But when there’s a growing list of Republicans
who are concerned and they find this to be problematic. That’s when Trump is willing to change course. So he has lashed out, both in the form of
tweets and in a press conference. I want to go to the clips first. Here’s Donald Trump talking about the Emoluments
Clause of our Constitution.>>Is willing to do this for free and what
would have been the greatest G7 ever. And I would have said to my family because
they run my business, I don’t run my business. I actually put all these stuffs in trust. They run my and I didn’t have to do that. I was under no obligation to do it. I don’t know if you know it, George Washington,
he ran his business simultaneously while he was president. Many other presidents, there weren’t too many
really rich presidents, but there were a few. They ran their business. George Washington was actually considered
a very, very rich man at the time. But they ran their businesses. George Washington, they say, had two desks. He had a presidential desk and a business
desk. I don’t think you people with this phony Emoluments
Clause.>>So he called the Emoluments Clause phony. It’s literally in the constitution. One thing I just want to know.>>The constitution that George Washington
signed.>>One thing I wanna note is he was not planning
on hosting the event for free. In fact, it was clear because he said it,
they would host it at the Trump Doral at cost. Which means whatever price Donald Trump wants
a slap on it.>>Yeah and he would have gotten paid. Even if he said I’m not taking profits of
it which, same person would believe. He would get paid management fees on top anyway,
he not only owns it, but he charges a management fee. So it’s complicated, how the ownership is
divvied up, etc.>>Mm-hm.>>But and then he says I have a trust. I don’t run it my kids run it. And then so I would have told them to not
make a profit on that. Wait I thought you said your kids run it. Then you just said you would tell them what
to do. Oops, okay. And if you are wondering what George Washington’s
business was, it was a hemp farm. And so if, dude you can make pants out of
it.>>Turns out you could and George Washington
apparently was. But he was not dealing with other countries,
he was selling stuff inside this country. So they’ve wouldn’t have affected the money
Emoluments Clause at all, the Emoluments Clause is about how you can’t get paid by other countries. The G7 countries are other countries.>>Mm-hm.>>They’re not Americans, that’s the whole
point. And so
>>No one would’ve known that.>>Yeah.>>No one would’ve known that the G7 summit
would include other countries.>>And no one knew about George Washington
businesses until I found out about it. Okay, and, and it would have been the best
G7 ever. Come on, I mean.>>He did say that.>>Come on.>>That was amazing. By the way can I just say one thing about.>>I mean, if it was sorry, sorry.>>Yeah.>>If Obama was like I’m putting together
a G7. It’s going to be the best G7 ever.>>Everyone would be like what, did Obama
lose his mind overnight? But we’re used to this guy being a fool and
we all laugh, the president is an idiot.>>Well speaking of him being a fool, I find
it interesting that Donald trump knows anything about George Washington. Or anything about history because he’s not
a man of history.>>Just had a released.>>He doesn’t care, he’s not interested. But for some reason when it comes to wealth
or presidents who were wealthy or had businesses, all of a sudden he’s paying attention. I mean he’s so driven by money. He’s so fascinated by money that’s all he
cares about.>>Yeah, no, look. He calls it the phony Emoluments Clause because
of course he’s never read the constitution, he doesn’t know what it is? And then I’m sure that when he was speaking
at Doral all of his yes men are so afraid of saying no to anything he says. They’re like picking your own property and
violating the constitution, brilliant idea, Mr. Trump, brilliant idea. Now he’s like, okay, who would like to defend
it? And boom, everybody’s got moving, the last
one in the room. He’s like, God damn it. Okay, so then they put together a media of
Republicans in Camp David over the weekend.>>Yes.>>Trump calls in. The majority of the Republicans say no, don’t
do it, the Doral. It’s obviously unconstitutional. We have no way of defending it. And I think that’s the first time a Donald
Trump ever really, I mean, could it be the only time that he’s ever heard of the Emoluments
Clause. Given that people have sued him over it and
a trip but it’s still possible because you because Fox News never talks about the Emoluments
Clause. So he might not have ever heard of it, but
if he did he certainly didn’t understand what it was. And so on that call might be the first time
that anyone ever explained to him why what he’s doing is unconstitutional. So he might be like God dammit this phony
clause it’s gonna make. I swear to you he doesn’t understand why as
president he is suppose to be serving others.>>Yeah.>>He’s suppose to be the representative of
the people and finding and representing you guys. He thinks, no, it’s all about me. He just cannot wrap his mind around something
not being on his own behalf. So he’s thinking, what? I’m supposed to not get rich off of being
President? This doesn’t make any sense.>>So even in his decision to no longer host
the G7 summit at his property, it’s still self serving. And the reason why is because when he jumped
on that call and spoke to those Republicans who were urging him, please don’t do this
is a bad idea. He was concerned about whether they’re gonna
support him in this impeachment inquiry. He needs them in the impeachment in court. So like, at the end of the day, Trump is thinking
about himself if he wasn’t facing this investigation. I guarantee you he would have moved forward.>>Of course. Okay, look, guys, the last thing for people
who say that Donald Trump has a strategy, he’s trying to distract from Ukraine. He’s trying to distract, or he’s going to
do this and that. If it was a strategy to do something as painfully
stupid as doing violating their Emoluments Clause, why did it reverse it two days later? Well, how was that part of the strategy? No, because there is no strategy. He’s an imbecile. He didn’t know that he was doing something
unconstitutional or may probably both didn’t care. He doesn’t care about violating the constitutional
law, never scared. And so he thought, what? I’m not supposed to make money of being president. And so when all the Republicans were no, you
idiot. That’s going to put us in an untenable position
that we will not be able to support you in your impeachment. And then he goes, okay, fine, I won’t do something
unconstitutional. God damn it, what do I get to make money around
here?>>It is amazing. Well, I do want to show you one last clip
because I know you are going to love this one. Here is Donald Trump talking about the financial
sustainability of the Doral resort.>>A great business I have best properties
but between one I lose and in all some properties to Doral as an example. Doral, was setting records when I bought it
because I wanted it for period setting records, it was going there was nothing like that was
making a fortune. And then what happened they announced I am
going to run for office. Right? And all of the sudden and I say we’re going
to build a wall, have borders. We got to have this, we got to have that. All of the sudden some people didn’t like
it, they thought the requisite was too tough. And it went from doing great to doing fine. It does very nicely now. It’s actually coming back I understand, very
strongly. But Doral was setting records. And I knew this would happen. I’m very good at real estate. Very, very good, much better than you even
understand. When you see my financials, which I’ll give
at the right time. You’ll say man, he was much better than we
even thought. This guy knows right here Mnuchin because
he was in the private sector. He does, he knows very much what I have, he
would tell you, someday maybe he’ll tell you.>>Please release your financials.>>I really want to be impressed, come on
Trump don’t you want to impress me?>>That’s right.>>Show me your financials.>>I’m sure they’re very big. So, he sounds like a third-grader I used to
know. No, you would. A helicopter comes out of our house. You wouldn’t believe it. That’s by the way. True story. And my dad is the head of the CIA. And my uncle is the head of the bomb. He looks just like that third graders. He does this with his eyes and make it up
things that are so obviously false.>>Was it? I mean, the Trump Doral was a financial mess.>>Yeah.>>It had bed bug issue, there were all sorts
of problems with it. The occupancy was low, Trump had to commit
fraud, allegedly. And inflate the revenue and the occupancy
of that resort in order to obtain loans.>>I’m really great at real estate. That guy right there would know, the one I
made treasury secretary. Because he was in the private sector. Okay, He didn’t go bankrupt six times by accident. He’s terrible at real estate. So right now there is only two things keeping
Donald Trump afloat financially. One is, he is pretty good, look, we’re fair
at constantly bragging as you see there. I have the best properties. And so what that did was it created, before
his presidency, value in the name Trump so he would get paid licensing fees. So he’d be like, can I run the building? They’d be like, no, no, you cannot run the
building. But we’ll pay you money for your name. And we’ll put Trump tower or suites or whatever,
all across the world and in the country. But you can’t own it because you have no credit,
because you’ve been bankrupt six times. And you are not allowed to run it, because
you suck at running things. But we’ll take your name, because he is good
at marketing. So I’m being fair to him in that sense.>>Mm-hm.>>And then so that’s what he did his and
the only other thing that he makes money off of, kind of, is the golf properties. And wait, how did he get money for the golf
properties with all those bankruptcies? Because the Russians gave them the money. And that’s, I’m not saying that, Donald Trump
Jr. said that, Eric Trump said that. And so his kid said, the Russians gave us
all our money for the golf properties because they really like golf.

Trump to TERMINATE NY Times & Washington Post Creds


Donald Trump is set to terminate the press
rights of the New York times and the Washington post. These are two of the most important investigative
media outlets in the Trump era. And because Donald Trump doesn’t like them,
he is now saying he will be terminating their white house press credentials. Now, one of the things that has, it was going
to be a focus actually of my keynote address at the grassroots radio conference in Rochester,
New York a couple of weeks ago. Unfortunately, that event had to be canceled
because I ended up, uh, in the hospital with an emergency appendectomy and I was not able
to give this talk, but I was going to focus on the strength of the attacks on media under
the current administration. We’ve seen this concerted, authoritarian disdained
towards the media, everything from threatening libel lawsuits to proposing journalism licenses
to talking about shutting down media outlets and should certain media outlets even be allowed
to exist, which is a very authoritarian concept. Even rising to the level of going after targeting,
attacking individual journalists, some of whom have actually as a result of being targeted
by Donald Trump and the administration have been the target to physical violence at events
and Trump rallies. And now Donald Trump in a total gang show
interview that ran an hour, uh, with his buddy Sean Hannity on Fox news last night, is saying
that his administration will be terminating the press credentials of the New York times
and the Washington post. Let’s take a look at it. Sean Hannity, of course, just gushing and
thrilled. Hell, it might even have been Sean Hannity’s
idea that Donald Trump do this. We know that Hannity frequently talks to Donald
Trump before Trump goes to bed. A extraordinarily romantic, isn’t it? Let’s take a look option. That’s something has to be investigated. This is what you have to look. But I watched this crazy Anderson Cooper the
other day during the debate, apologize for having to ask the question to them. Apologize if that were me. He declared his innocence, if that were my
sons that took $168,000 from this, a very questionable company, an energy company, and
they knew nothing about energy at all. He knew nothing about energy and he has a
bad record, bad track record, including getting thrown out of the Navy, and even the way he
got into the Navy is interesting in his position. If that were Don jr, if that were Eric Trump
who are fairly outstanding young men, it would be the biggest story of the century. What does it say about the media? I agree with you. The media is corrupt. Not all media is. Look, I know some, some great people including
you, but I know some great journalists, look, they gave Pulitzer prizes to people. They got it wrong. Okay. All these people for doing it from the New
York times, which is a fake newspaper, we don’t even want it in the white house anymore. We’re going to probably terminate that in
the Washington post. They’re fake, but you take a look at the New
York times and you take a look at the kind of reporting they do. It was all, it turned out to be all wrong. Now you can probably guess that everything
Trump said there is a lie, but I want to focus in specifically on the media attacks. You know, he talks about crazy Anderson Cooper. Again, another example of targeting specific
journalists. He throws Hunter Biden under the bus. I thought that the children of elected officials
were off limits, but then it’s the big media attack, the corrupt media. We need to terminate the New York times and
the Washington post. Now, I don’t believe that he is saying he
needs to terminate them as entities. Although he’s alluded to shutting down media
outlets in the past. It’s pretty clear that what he means is terminating
their access to white house press briefings, which by the way, there hasn’t been one for
nine months and you know, traveling with the president and this type of thing. This is how tyranny slowly starts to rain. This is how authoritarianism develops and
the gun people always talk about we need our hand guns and rifles to protect ourselves
from a government that becomes tyrannical, that may use tanks or whatever else. In the modern era, purported ostensible democracies
like the United States, they rarely become authoritarian or tyrannical. To borrow the, the word that the right wing
gun people like to use in this cartoonish tanks on the street way. Although Trump has talked about wanting a
parade with tanks, they tend to become more quietly tyrannical by attacking press freedom,
by limiting the access of media outlets that they don’t like by turning public opinion
against individual journalists. And I don’t see a single one of them saying
we’ve gotta defend freedom of the press with those firearms. Yes, a PR, a free press when the president
likes what the press is saying and you will hear the defense that, hold on a second, David,
he’s not shutting down the New York times. He’s not shutting down the Washington post. They’re just merely going to lose their white
house credentials. We’re experiencing such scandal fatigue that
I don’t believe we are understanding the gravity of what Donald Trump is promising to do here
in his interview with Sean Hannity, there are times in American history where a president
specifically targeting the press credentials of individual media outlets that they don’t
like would be considered impeachable but due to scandal fatigue due to the density desensitization
that we have experienced as a result of the outrageous acts of this administration. This is an authoritarian nightmare that is
going Holy unnoticed and it is being backed implicitly and or explicitly by the Republican
Senate, which is another issue that we’ve been talking about which I won’t divert into
today and much like with the ignored impeachment subpoenas that I talked about earlier in today’s
program there is zero indication. There was no indication that this is going
to have consequences unless, and this is why I keep talking about it and I actually got
some emails this week saying, David, it doesn’t matter that you’re repeating yourself like
a broken record. You need to keep talking about this. There may be no consequences to any of this
unless we vote him out in November of 2020. It’s barely 12 months away because they’re
ignoring the subpoenas and getting away with it. They are going after media outlets and getting
away with it. They are terminating press credentials and
getting away with it and there may be the only hope of voting this out in November of
2020. Hey, this is, um, I guess it’s sort of funny
even though it’s not, I mean like I, I hate that I was right about this, but it has happened
and I predicted it. Are we going to half ago? And it is happening exactly. Looney Lindsey Graham or flimsy gram as some
in the audience suggested I refer to him has again flip flopped and now supports Donald
Trump’s absurd, erratic, haphazard pullout from Syria back on October 10th. I did a story, this was just under two weeks
ago about how Looney Lindsey had turned on Donald Trump when it came to Syria. Flimsy. Lindsey tweeted, pray for our Kurdish allies
who have been shamelessly abandoned by the Trump administration. This move ensures the reemergence of ISIS
and I told you at the time, you’ve got to be really careful with flimsy Lindsey. He is a flip flopper. He is a put my finger to the wind and see
what will get me some kind of attention type of guy.

Constitution? Trump Admin IGNORING 8 Impeachment Subpoenas


Let’s talk about the rule of law and having
a civilized country with processes that are adhered to in line with the framework of our
country that includes coequal branches of government and distribution of powers. The
Trump administration has already ignored. They are past due on eight impeachment subpoenas.
Now, there are far more than eight impeachment inquiry related subpoenas that have been issued.
The due dates on some of those have not yet passed. It’s October 22nd however, and I’ve
been talking about this, what good is a constitution? What good is the law? What good is a constitutionally
enshrined impeachment process? If the Trump administration can simply ignore it, but not
only ignore it and get away with it, which is exactly what is going on. The answer is
all of that infrastructure, all of those duly enshrined powers of the co-equal branches
of government, they are pretty damn worthless if they are not going to be enforced and it’s
not just Democrats, it’s also the judiciary that is a part and parcel of this. So let’s
look at them. Okay. Some of these are document requests. Secretary of state Mike Palm PEO
was supposed to turn over documents about Ukraine 17 days ago. He hasn’t done it. There’s
no consequences. Gordon Sunland, the U S ambassador to the European union, a major Trump donor.
He has seven days overdue on a subpoena for documents, consequences, none. Rudy Giuliani
or Giuliani as some people like to say a Trump’s personal lawyer. Maybe it’s not clear. Trump claims not to
know whether Rudy is still his lawyer, supposed to turn over a ton of documents, hasn’t related
to Ukraine. He’s in the thick of it, possibly criminal six days past. Mark Esper, the secretary
of defense. He is six days overdue on a subpoena for documents. Russell Vought, the acting
director of the office of management and budget is in deeply with regard to Ukraine. It’s
been six days since his subpoena was due. Um, nothing. Lev Parness and Igor Fruman.
These are the henchmen. These are like Nixon’s Watergate, henchmen. These are associates
of Rudy Giuliani who are five days overdue on a request for documents, subpoenas. They
were caught literally fleeing the country on one way plane to plane tickets heading
to the airport and arrested Mick Mulvaney, Donald Trump’s acting chief of staff three
days past due on legal subpoena document requests. And of course, Rick Perry Trump’s now resigned
secretary of energy, a much bigger player than we originally thought in the Ukraine
fiasco. He is also several days past due on a subpoenas,
uh, when you are a regular person, when you forget to comply with a subpoena, when you
opt not to comply with a subpoena, it has consequences, whether it’s a court subpoena
or a congressional subpoena. I know that there are Republicans playing this stupid game of,
well, listen, you know, court subpoenas are one thing, but a congressional subpoenas,
they don’t really have that full force. Number one, you’re wrong. Number two, the Trump administration
and associates have also ignored court subpoenas. So if indeed they are two different things,
they have been treating them the exact same way. When you are a normal person, ignoring
subpoenas has consequences. It doesn’t go away. You get arrested, you’re held in contempt.
It’s bad. But so far, no consequences exactly as I suggested to you would be the case. So
part of this is the system hasn’t really had to deal with this degree of flouting of the
law. What I mean by that is there are not past
presidencies. We are not, uh, looking back at past presidencies through Rose colored
glasses. It is merely a fact that past presidencies, unless you really go back to Nixon, have not,
uh, flouted law in the way that the Trump administration is doing. And to a degree as
legal scholars have pointed out, the system as it was designed, never presumed that you
would see a presidential administration flout the law to this degree. That is one part of
the problem, but Democrats are also part of the problem. It is time for law enforcement
to get involved in enforcing the subpoenas. It is time for Congress to actually demand
the full enforcement of these subpoenas and they’re not doing it and there’s plenty of
blame to go around. It is not just one part of your entity that is guilty here and the
sickest irony of it all. It’s that if and when Democrats did start
enforcing the subpoenas with force, they would be called the authoritarians. They would be
accused of using men with guns to enforce political grievances. They’d be accused of,
listen, you’re putting people in jail, you’re the authoritarians, and it would be another
one of these acts of blatant projection. It would be one of the most authoritarian white
houses that we have seen in a really, really long time of the pot calling the kettle black.
What do you think? If you’re watching on YouTube, leave a reply. If you’re not, if you’re listening
to the podcast or watching on free speech, TV or anywhere else, send me a tweet at [inaudible]
Pacman. What do you think it will take? If anything and the answer may be there will
not be, there is nothing even hypothetically that will do it for Democrats to start demanding
the enforcement of these subpoenas. We will take a quick break and be back after this
with much more including if you want to talk about authoritarianism. The way this administration
has dealt with the media is at the top of the list and Donald Trump now telling his
bedtime phone buddy Sean Hannity from Fox news that he is going to be terminating the
press rights at the white house of just so happens to be the New York times and the Washington
post. We’ll talk about that after the break.