Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Joseph, welcome aboard to the show today.
Very happy to have you. And the is because we have a very interesting topic to discuss today, which is incredibly difficult. And I must. I must confess that I have a little bit of hesitance in coming to the discussion today. But nonetheless, welcome aboard.
[00:00:19] Speaker B: Thank you for having me. And yes, it's Joseph M. Leonard. It's not French. People want to pronounce it Leonard, but it's Leonard without an o and the middle initial in there. Because indeed there is a Joseph Lenard that's also an author. So, you know, kind of make that distinction.
[00:00:40] Speaker A: I love that.
Your note from the author. And basically you were saying, and I thought this was wonderful because this is such a difficult topic. You're basically saying, look, there's no clear right answers here. Really. The main objective is for each individual to start to think about these topics and learn more. And I think that's an important thing to say to the audience right now. Because if you think. If they. If our audience thinks in anything that you or I said that we have the answers and they should believe what we said, I think that should be a no to that. You should really just start or continue your journey of learning and questioning yourself. And probably that's going to be the most valuable thing.
[00:01:21] Speaker B: It's all a matter of one's own perspective. Where do you sit or stand in the world and within the space of whatever nation you are in, in the world, I mean, everybody's perspective is going to be a little different. Like on Maverick News last night, I was on. And the host mentioned about. Yeah, everyone's entitled to their opinion.
[00:01:46] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:01:47] Speaker B: And indeed, true. What I like to say, your opinion, is it based on reality or unicorn fart fantasy delusion. That makes a difference, you know, are you dealing in fact or. Oh, my feelings. Right.
[00:02:07] Speaker A: Yeah. So with no further ado, let me ask the first hard question of many. Probably where were you on 9 11?
[00:02:19] Speaker B: I actually was starting with health problems in 2001. Certainly nothing then to deal with 9 11. But I was working for Kmart.
Gone now, of course, really exists just online, but at the hq. But I was up most of the night dealing with tech calls because I was an IT guy. So I stayed home that day and I got out of bed to turn on the TV when the second plane hit. So I was home and then able to sit down and start to absorb that. But as the saying goes, there but for the grace of God go I. I was in New York at the Trade center just a couple weeks before, and it's like, wow. Indeed, there but for the grace of God go I. If scheduling would have changed just a bit, I'd have been there that day.
[00:03:25] Speaker A: What was going through your head that moment that you understand that terrorists basically brought down the twin towers?
[00:03:37] Speaker B: I try to pride myself in dealing in logic and reason and thought, but it's almost impossible to have not been overcome by emotions and floods of anger and upset.
[00:03:54] Speaker A: I don't think anybody who lived through that moment, myself included, doesn't remember exactly where they were and what they were doing. But I agree with you to that level of emotion. It was just so, you know, unexplainable. It was just so much. And so actually at that moment that I learned, I thought that because I didn't see the tv, somebody told me, I thought they were, they were joking. I thought that there was a very poor joke because I didn't think it was possible, actually. I refused to believe it initially. My first was like, no, that can't be true. How could that be true?
[00:04:29] Speaker B: Well, yeah, unfortunately, it was, I think, kind of an inevitability.
And I don't, you know, some try to say, well, it was a false flag or it was indeed definitely a black swan event came out of the blue for most people. But there were people on the inside of our, you know, security and intelligence apparatus that, you know, you hear, why didn't we connect the dots that had those pieces of the dots and indeed did they not connect them or did some of them actually know it was coming and allow it to happen? I don't want to. I don't normally deal in any of that. It happened. That's the reality by which to move forward from. No one forced them to do what they did. But as I discussed in terror strikes coming soon to a city near you, Project Bojinka and other events that were thwarted told us something like this would be attempted at least, and we should have indeed been better prepared and able to handle it when they did.
[00:05:53] Speaker A: So I mean, what would bring an organization to take an action which is so radical? And so I don't know how to say it except for crazy, right? Basically attacking civilian life. Like, how could there be such a discrepancy between, you know, at least the attempt to really attack military targets in many cases, right? In war, we try to go after military targets.
[00:06:32] Speaker B: War is an old Pentagon that day.
[00:06:34] Speaker A: Like the Pentagon, right? So one of them actually did go after a military target.
Ironic. I don't know if this is ironic or not, but ironically, the, the one that went after the Quote unquote military or government target. That one was actually thwarted. And the two that went after civilian targets are the ones that hit.
[00:06:52] Speaker B: Yeah, well, let me correct that. It wasn't thwarted. The Flight 91 over Shanksville that we, the conjecture or speculation is would have been aimed at the White House or you know, our congressional building.
The one that hit the Pentagon was just apparently their ability to fly wasn't as good. And obviously it's harder to hit a four story building than it is a Honkin 110 story sliver in the sky really to come at. So they just weren't capable of hitting it as I'm sure they hoped and thought they would. No missile or anything took it down. It is just they did a bad job on that target. You know, not, not to sound cold, but militarily speaking, that's the analysis that I would give to it.
[00:08:01] Speaker A: So how, why, how, why even go after civilian targets? I mean, how does this make sense?
[00:08:09] Speaker B: Again, I try to pride in logic and reason. The justification which we may or may not agree with, I don't think it's a good one. Attacking civilians is, if you want to be taken legitimately serious as a fighting force and that you are supposedly fighting for good, that your cause is good. Targeting civilians or conversely hiding behind civilians as human shields is just how do you think That's a good optic. But the argument would be that it was a legitimate economic target against the United States with New York being our, some would argue, the world's main financial center. And could they hit the stock exchange with a plane? Not likely. That was a symbol of our economic prowess. And therefore in some people's minds, I guess they deem it legitimate military target.
[00:09:27] Speaker A: I mean, I could imagine that there are hundreds of targets that might have created, you know, bigger economic damage. Right. Hit the ports, hit, you know, energy, hit like there were many ways that could have been as economically, let's say hit the United States, but not create the emotional devastation. So it kind of leads me to believe that there was a, and we call it terrorism, I guess, for a reason. There is an emotional aspect to this.
[00:10:00] Speaker B: Yeah. The terrorism in itself, by definition is to inflict a pain on peoples, to draw an emotional response in the hopes that you, through fear, manipulate them into actions you prefer them to take than what they would necessarily originally take. And I hate to have to do this, but I have to give the disclaimer. We're talking about Islamic fundamentalists that particular time. Write the disclaimer. Not all Muslims are terrorists. Not all terrorists. Are Muslims. In my terror strike books there's a chapter Tokyo on the om shrink Yoko Christian cult terror attacks on the subways there. So. And I coined the term GAS Global Islamic Jihadist interim army soldiers. That to me kind of denotes connotation of Nazi, right? We're talking about like In Germany, only 10% it is said of Germans were Nazis. And look how that turned out. It doesn't take a large percent, it is said of the United States, only about 1% of our society in the late 1700s wanted to break from England. And indeed, look what so a small sector of society.
But they attacked the Trade center before and that's I think the piece that you're forgetting or missing. These gas tend to look at anniversaries to then want to strike upon again or targets like The Trade center, the 94, I think it was truck bomb that they thought if they hit the Surrey wall in the corner of a trade center it could weaken it and topple it like cutting down a tre. And that failed. So they wanted to strike that as a target, as a follow up to that event.
And most people don't know that history to understand the indeed why that target that plays into it.
[00:12:32] Speaker A: So we have these horrific terrorist attacks. There is definitely an intent here to strike fear into not only the hearts of Americans, but people all over the world.
How does that, how does that impact the American society?
[00:12:53] Speaker B: Well, if we turn into our own fascistic security state, they win.
They want to destroy Western culture. It's part cultural, it's part religious. So all these things factor and.
[00:13:12] Speaker A: Let me, let me stop you, Let me stop you there. I mean that's, there's something incredibly quote unquote unfair here. We're trying to play at a, at a. I don't know if it's fair to call it a higher or different. But we're trying to play by more rules, right? We're trying to say that we have higher maybe ethical values and we're not going to, you know, attack civilians, but you know, terrorists are willing to attack civilians.
[00:13:39] Speaker B: Collateral damage can and will happen any time. But that is different from the purposeful, willful malice of forethought targeting civilians or hiding behind them as human shields as we see across the Middle east these days.
[00:13:58] Speaker A: So, so, so this is a really interesting dynamic, right? Because in a way if we let go of these values of ours, right, which is to intentionally attack civilians, then to a certain degree there's no difference between us and them, correct?
[00:14:16] Speaker B: They win in a sense to some degree if we Indeed, give up the values and principles of being about life and living. And I like to say that about my book. Terror strikes coming soon to a city near you. Yeah. Terrorism is the thread that holds it all together. But it's not about death, it's about life and living. Because that's your point. Our value, valuing life, valuing free will and individualism over collectivism, all that's in there. Yeah. If we give up those values and principles, indeed they win. We're no better than them.
[00:15:01] Speaker A: So there's a few things coming across. One is that this difference in values, we are almost raised on the sanctity of life as opposed to another side. That would it be. I don't want to put words in your mouth. Would it almost be fair to say that, you know, death and destruction is not. I don't know if it's a value, but maybe there isn't as much of a value for. For life. Is that a fair statement?
[00:15:30] Speaker B: No, it very much is. And again, let me put that disclaimer. I'm not attempting to paint with a broad brush here. Let's use for example, a subsect of the Shia sect.
It is their stated goal and purpose to rain down death and destruction to then return the Mahdi. It's a stated open goal. Death, destruction, chaos. So yes, in certain people's brains.
But again, that doesn't mean everybody who may now or has ever been a Shia.
[00:16:16] Speaker A: So for these really extremist groups, you would agree that the death is a stated, let's say even target. Right. It's in their, in their charters, they.
[00:16:26] Speaker B: Openly record martyrdom videos. Right. And let's not call it suicide bombers. It's murder, suicide bombers, the murder part is the point that they suicide. At the same time they consider themselves a martyr, openly, willingly, malice aforethought, demonstrating their joy that they're about to go kill civilians. But yeah, so it's important. Murder suicide, you can't leave out the front part. And so many people do. It drives me crazy. If on the news there's an event and they say another suicide bombing. No, it's a murder suicide attempt.
Absolutely not. That they just so happen to accidentally take some people with them.
[00:17:25] Speaker A: And on this topic of values. So it seems that there is a topic of life, you know, the sanctity of life. Call it a difference in values here. What about truth? I mean, truth is something that is incredibly central to Western culture.
I had my own experience where I've seen that that is not necessarily the most important value. In other Cultures, for example, respect and family hierarchy can be important values in other cultures. What is the value of truth look like when it comes to these extremist terrorist groups?
[00:18:01] Speaker B: Yeah. Well, first let me make the admission that I am very ashamed to say of my own nation, that truth, facts, evidence versus oh, but I feel that way is becoming less of a value. Right. Like, I don't remember if it was just in the green room before or during the record I mentioned opinion, right? Oh, yeah. I think I said because I was on Maverick News. Opinion is great, it's fine, it's wonderful. And indeed we are all entitled to them. But is it based anything at all rooted in any reality? Truth, facts, evidence or unicorn fart fantasy, delusion? It's just I'm delusional and I wish the world to be this way, want the world to be this way, and I'm going to darn it, pretend the world is this way.
[00:19:04] Speaker A: Were we more centered in facts and truth, you know, 40 years ago? Or is that just an illusion of time and a bias that we.
[00:19:14] Speaker B: I think it depends again individuals. Martin Luther King Jr. Right. Content of one's character. So trying to avoid the broad brushes. But indeed, stereotypes came into existence for a reason. Enough people of whatever group had done enough of something to create such a stereotype. It doesn't mean it applies to anyone and everyone in that group. So it depends on the pocket of the United States, let alone other parts of the world. Russia even, for example, with the war going on in Ukraine, there are certainly pockets in Russia I know, I hear from them that are not happy with the aggression Putin has waged upon Ukraine and attempting to reconcile constitute the Soviet empire. He's more Stalin than Lenin, you know, and he said all along of his desire to reconstitute to that. And a whole lot of people are not on board with that. They are indeed more the can't we all get along? You know, Rodney King from back then, although, you know, he was in my mind a joke, a criminal. And that phrase he latched onto to deflect from all his bad in life that he done that brought on the situation that happened and almost caused Reginald Denny his life, who's I think still now paralyzed from the riots that ensued after that. So I don't want to paint a broad brush. It depends on the individual, it depends on the locations. But indeed, some groups more as a whole than others, it does seem to make a difference. And yes, I think truth and honesty, you know, like the old black and white TV Ozzie and Harriet days Right.
I don't know if you're familiar with that old TV series, right? The traditional mom and dad family structure and truth and honesty were values and they are indeed less valued today, even here in the United States, to the point where it disgusts me.
[00:21:50] Speaker A: Let me ask you this, right?
Let's say I have a very specific belief about the world and that's just what's good for me, right? So this is good for me because that's my identity, right? This topic of identity politics, your preferred narrative. This is my preferred narrative.
And if this X happened, that would benefit me and my people.
On the other hand, let's say you, you have the counter text. Why, if that happened, it would benefit you and your people.
Why would it, why would I even, why would it even matter to me? Why is it important for me even to deal in truths? Why would I not just invent, you know, whatever thing is convenient for me, whatever crime I do, I'll just blame the other side. Why is truth even an important value?
[00:22:47] Speaker B: Well, now you're getting into the depths of. Are you of any faith? And even the original Quran talks of truth as a value. So it's not the Quran itself that's the problem, it's the corruption of. And as I said again, not all Muslim are terrorists. Not all terrorists are Muslim. In my book, the Om Shrink Yoko Christian cult engaged in terrorism. So all, you know, look at the IRA issue in England. So there's always going to be those different things. I don't want to lay everything on one, but we're dealing with from a certain sector of society the most today. But if you have real roots in your faith, then truth has to. Right? Your faith is nothing, it's meaningless. If your text isn't based in truth, you're believing a delusion. So it's an atheistic or humanistic. We talk all the time on my show Christitutionalist Politics about a lot of churches becoming Church of Woke rather than Church of Christ or synagogues. A lot of them are becoming humanist clubs, you know, of the world and in the world and all about the world, rather than existing as a person of that faith trying to navigate this world without losing our soul. So if you're an atheist, I guess you've got no preclusions unless you're like a pen. I talk of Penn and Teller, you know, the magician, comedians, well known atheist. But he's not a hater of religion kind of atheist like far too many atheists are. He has no problem and says he's happy that there are Judeo Christian foundations in America. He agrees with you. Don't steal from me. I don't get to steal from you. Whether that's rooted in faith or just being a good human is a positive thing. Right? I don't get to murder you. You don't get to murder me.
[00:25:23] Speaker A: I think that's fundamentally really the discussion here. It's about that we have certain values that support a graceful existence of society. I think that's really the point. And that terrorism to a certain degree is making us question our own values.
Is truth important?
Is life important or is taking of innocent life? Clearly innocent life. The people at the Trade center were not connected to any type of war, aggression activities.
Is that a legitimate thing to do for the quote unquote resistance of any type? And we're not going into any kind of political thing.
[00:26:15] Speaker B: I want to go back to Penn again. It's just being a good human, whether religious based or not now rooted in the Torah and or the Old Testament. For me as a Christian it really is thou shalt not murder innocence. That's the actual commandment. It's not thou shalt not kill the Bible, the Torah, all the religions lay out exceptions where a killing is justifiable and it's the root of our law in the west, right. Exodus 22:2, a thief in the night dealt a fatal blow. You're not guilty of murder. You have killed, but you didn't murder. That was a self defense situation. Unless if you're standing over the body with a clock and a 30 round clip and you empty 30 bullets in right? Then that's a whole other thing.
[00:27:16] Speaker A: So we have this idea of life and truth. What about freedom of speech? There seems to be yet another difference here in values. And we've heard from home where anytime we don't like something, and this is on the left and the right, we're kind of like oh okay, let's censor that. But to a certain, well, we have a constitution. So how does this balance, like should we, should we be going down this path of some things we should censor?
[00:27:47] Speaker B: Well, I want people to expose themselves. Right.
You for those hearing on audio, I'm rubbing my bald head and it wouldn't really what, you know, a hairdo choice. I had cancer in 2010, leukemia. And when it came out I decided, okay, I'm going to shave. Right. And of course if this were the 80s, I'd be accused of being a neo Nazi, right. Skinheads today. Those assumptions thankfully aren't necessarily leapt to that conclusion. But let me make this generic. Let me say you, you have the right all day long to hate people with bald heads. And you have every right to express your dislike and disdain for people like me. A bald head, all day, all night. Hate speech is protected speech. And the answer to bad speech, as you and I would define it, is more speech to counter them. And again, I want to know who the haters are and let them express it. So I know to either avoid them or be prepared to counter them with my own words. Like one article I have on beforexnews.com antisemite, three talking points dismissed in five minutes. You know, because social media, I encounter them all the time and okay, I've got this article. Share it with you instantly. Block you, no pun on your name intended.
Although again, people, we gotta, gotta keep a sense of humor or we'll go crazy even with this serious topic. But I want them to express it. You do not, however, then have the right or the ability to extend someone should do something to people with bald heads. That is the line. Then it's no longer speech and an opinion and a desire. It is a call to action. It is an incitement and that is violation of law. It's like the old yell fire in a crowded theater thing, right? That idiot on the court that coined that phrase has been dismissed over and over. You can yell fire in a crowded theater, but that's not a matter of opinion. Either there is fire or there isn't. And if there isn't, you incited potential harm to others. You are guilty of fraud and or fraud in the inducement or incitement, unless if you can prove to a jury of your peers, I honestly really thought there was a fire, which would be a tough task. So the yelling fire in a crowded theater is a horrible example. Whereas I like to think my people with bald heads example is a better one.
[00:31:00] Speaker A: Why not go to the side of not only not allowing incitement, let's just not allow anything that's negative. So if we start going down that path, total anarchy. Why does the prohibition of, let's say, hateful speak, not even insightful speak, but hateful speak, why does that lead to anarchy? That's a non trivial understanding, I think.
[00:31:25] Speaker B: Well, hate speech does not necessarily lead to anarchy. The other is, if incitement is allowed and harm to come to others is allowed, that is indeed anarchy. Now, in a way, some might argue that's biblical. I would argue it's not, you know, free will. We are given free will and therefore some might Argue what I choose to do with that. Me, me, me only me only what matters for me, what's good for me, hey, is valid. I don't think that's true, but certainly the argument can be made. But yeah, an anarchy system. And let me make clear, like groups like Antifa here in the US they may use anarchist tactics, but they're not anarchists. They just want to undermine the current system like terrorists do too create terror because they want to bring down an existing system to then institute their own fascistic kami fasci sochis as I call them. Blend their own governance where they are the ruling elites and lord over all else. They don't like the current we are individuals with free will and choices with some limitations system that there is. They would rather have us have no options, no choices, no freedoms.
They use anarchist tactics, but that's not their aim.
[00:33:10] Speaker A: And that's such an interesting paradigm, this idea that if there's a system and you don't like that system.
Well, in essence there's two. If we oversimplify, there's two options. One is we build a new system from scratch, ground up. The other one is, well, let's figure out what's wrong with the system and try to fix it.
When we say anarchy, basically what these people have, maybe logically or illogically or maybe even haven't come to this conclusion, but how I perceive it is that they're like, okay, this system is unfixable, so we're going to burn it down by whatever means possible and then we're going to build up a new system. Now my concern when it comes to our anarchistic views is that, well, will they build up a better system?
Is it going to be any better?
[00:34:02] Speaker B: They will always claim it. They're always claiming, oh, they're you know, their utopia. Well, you point out, well what you want been tried over and over and fails in the United States. People don't recognize this. Communism was tried. Community is biblical. I talk on my show about this all the time. Free will, like It's a Wonderful Life. It's coming to be Christmastime, that'll be on TV channels all over. But people don't look at the politics of it. Community is biblical. It is of our own free will. It's a wonderful life. The savings and loan is an example of community. We join the savings and loan or the credit union for our and others benefits. But it's not communism, which is force and theft. We can choose as individuals to come together in biblical community or there's Communism, which is forced upon you and everywhere it's tried, it fails. It's was tried in the United States. The Bradford Colony people hear about the Mayflower Compact. What they don't hear is it was a commie compact, a commonwealth, a collective. Everyone was supposed to put in and would get out equally regardless of what they put in. And of course, Atlas Shrugged, because as Jesus said, the poor will always be among you. That's not an economic statement, it's not a governance statement, it's a human nature statement. If you allow someone to get equal of everything by putting less and less in, some lazy people will do that. And eventually, as the saying goes, there's more in the cart to be pulled than can pull the cart. So communism was a failure in the United States. Bradford went on to institute individual rights and freedoms, personal responsibility, personal private property, all the things America was then gone on to be founded on. So it was tried and failed on our continent here, long before Marx ever came up with his failed application of it.
[00:36:31] Speaker A: So, I mean, but really this seems to be yet another conflict of values, right? This, this idea of, of on one extreme, a 100% meritocracy, where if you're successful, then you can basically live.
And the other extreme of the meritocracy is that if you're unsuccessful, then you can't even get healthcare. That's the extreme, extreme, let's say, version of a meritocracy. On the other hand of the spectrum we have communism, where it's, you know, each according to their ability, to each according to their need, where, you know, 100% of the extreme communism versions in the world have failed in economic disaster. They've never been able to really create anything or be productive. But then we see a thousand shades of gray. America to a certain degree is closer to a meritocracy than European nations who have more socialistic values. Right.
[00:37:40] Speaker B: Complete right. You have anarchy, no governments, governance. On the left you have fascism, communism, socialism, even monarchy. A ruling elite, top down overall. Yeah. And that's where faith comes back again. You are to want to be your brother's keeper, not forced to be your brother's keeper.
[00:38:08] Speaker A: So, I mean, I think we both would agree that both extremes have danger in them.
[00:38:15] Speaker B: Absolutely.
[00:38:16] Speaker A: There's no, it's not that, you know, extreme meritocracy is good and it's not that an extreme socialistic environment is good. It's really somewhere on the gray area. So how do we even decide? Do we want to be more to the left or more to the right? Is There even an answer? Is there a logical way to come at this again?
[00:38:42] Speaker B: Yeah, logic. But there is feeling involved and faith involved again. We are to want to be our brother's keeper. And that's where charity is supposed to come in. As opposed to forced communism through threat. Going back to an anarchist. If someone were truly an atheist anarchist, they would want a complete meritocracy. Me, what do I get? How can I get it? When can I get it? And no one else matters but people of faith. We are to want to care for one another and it's how it's done as to opposed to how it should be done in our thought, in our opinion, the logical way to do it. And again, going back to the poor shall always be among you. Recognizing human nature and communism refuses to do that.
[00:39:46] Speaker A: I think there's something, and I think this is an understated value that there's something wonderful about the dichotomy of governance in the United States. And what I would argue is that having the left and the right kind of take up in arms on opposing sides of the spectrum to a certain degree actually creates a balance.
And I think that that balance and that argument is actually creating a form of checks and balances where it kind of keeps us on this middle ground. So I would almost argue that I don't know what the right answer is, but I think this never ending, almost fight of us thinking about it, talking about it, that's what's going to keep us in the safe zone. Because we know there's a broad safe zone. But if we go beyond that safe zone, everything falls apart, either direction, left.
[00:40:46] Speaker B: Or right of the ultimate far extreme of the spectrum. I agree. Go back to meritocracy.
There's in my mind logically common sense, wise thinking, more merit to as much of that as possible. Because it's then deals with those who refuse to do for themselves. There is an A, not a punishment for it. But you know, if you're not willing to work, you don't eat. Unless if you're disabled and can't do for yourself, those who choose not to do, then all right, you don't have anything you've got to do in order to get something and be part of productive society. So there's not that it's a force of a different sense.
[00:41:41] Speaker A: I thought there was a really interesting thing initially when I heard this, I think it was on TikTok, I was like, oh, that's, that's shocking. And what, what they showed is that if you kind of calculate everybody who's homeless, and everybody who's hungry that comes up to a certain sum of money. And then they compared that to, you know, how much we're spending on Ukraine. And it immediately strikes you of, oh, we could solve hunger and homelessness with one broad strike if we just didn't spend that money. So here's the interesting counter argument that I then after heard to this. If we would kind of solve homelessness right overnight, that means we give a home to every single homeless person.
[00:42:24] Speaker B: But not every one of them wants one. Some of them choose to be there. They want to be there. That's their preference.
[00:42:33] Speaker A: That's such an unintuitive point. But I did actually hear, I can't remember which state this was. I think it was Florida. The, the chief of police was basically saying, these people just want to be left alone. But for sake of argument for a second, if we kind of solve the problem, right, we put all that money down, then really the this and this. The guy that explained this to me was an economist. He said, look, what you've done is you've made it very attractive to basically have free living because, oh, if you're. All you have to do is you're homeless, you get a free house. Basically. That's how we solve homelessness.
[00:43:10] Speaker B: Right?
[00:43:11] Speaker A: Declare yourself homeless now, you get a free house. So what he said to me is that basically the fear of being homeless is what keeps many of us productive.
And by solving homelessness, actually, what might happen in a very real sense is that you might double homelessness. So if it took a billion dollars to solve homelessness, now a whole bunch, maybe 20, 30% of the population is like, well, why am I working so hard? Now another 30% of the population is like, oh, okay, so now what happened is you lost 30% of the productivity, let's say of these are fictitious numbers. We don't really know what would happen. But that increase of 30%, let's say for sake of argument now has declared themselves homeless because it's easier not to work. They're not productive. But now the issue that happens is, well, who's not paying for. For that, you know, whatever percentage of homeless. And now the other people are like, well, I don't want to pay for it. And it kind of goes down this path of, well, now there's just not enough money in the pot to pay for everybody who not only was homeless, but who now wants to be homeless.
[00:44:24] Speaker B: Because it's easier to be homeless at some point. Atlas Wolf's rug. And it goes back, you're making the same point I did with the more towards meritocracy the carrot as opposed to the stick.
You want to be destitute your whole life and have nothing to show for it and be hungry all the time or you want to get off your duff and work and actually earn a keep and feed your belly and your kids belly and that. Right. It's that same situation. Too many in the cart to be able to pull the cart.
[00:45:01] Speaker A: And ironically, this concept of hard work is also a somewhat religious value. Right? Should we work hard? Should our life be about serving and serving others and generating value? It's such an interesting discussion. Joseph, thank you so much for coming on the show today. Really our only agenda today was to push people to think, to ask themselves questions and to learn and explore more.
I truly don't believe that there is a right answer, but I think if we were all and I believe that you agree with me and I can see you nodding your head for those of us who are not on video. I truly believe that at least if us all were a little bit more smarter about these issues and understood that there's more shades of gray as opposed to right and wrong, I think we would all benefit for that. So yeah, I appreciate you coming on the show.
[00:45:56] Speaker B: I've got shows on the issue of gray area entirely. Exactly. And you conduct your show like I do mine. No agenda, no script, whatever. Rabbit holes open. And I think this was a very productive session. Thank you for having me. I really appreciate it. And people can reach out to me through Joseph M. Leonard. Again, not Leonard Leonard. Willard or no, Joseph Mleonard us.
[00:46:24] Speaker A: Joseph, thank you so much for today.
