Mamdani's Housing: The Soviet Question Is Who Decides Who Gets What | Dr. Yuri Yarim-Agaev

[00:00:00] In the 1980s, a young Soviet physicist built a mathematical model of the Soviet Union's economy. He worked out what people were really being taxed and concluded the Soviet Union would collapse within a decade. The official tax rate was 13%. He calculated the real one at over 90%. Welcome to The Jenny Beth Show. I'm Jenny Beth Martin, and this is our Surviving Communism Series.

[00:00:39] Welcome to The Jenny Beth Show. I sit down with people from five countries who know what communism actually does. Today, we learn more about what happened to them in the communist countries, to their families, their food, their churches, and their futures. This is the second half of my conversation with Dr. Yuri Yarim-Agaev. He was expelled from the Soviet Union in 1980. He came here to America and became an American.

[00:01:05] He testified before Congress and founded an organization that supported dissidents still inside the Soviet Union. He advised the Reagan administration and briefed President Ronald Reagan twice, once before Reykjavik and once before Moscow. Here's Dr. Yuri Yarim-Agaev.

[00:01:24] So how do you answer and what would you say to people who are talking about housing right now? And well, I think that what is happening with housing is two things. One, they're saying that there's an affordability crisis with housing.

[00:01:48] So it goes to what you're saying about from each according to or to each according to their needs. And I think also about what Mamdani is doing in New York. And he's trying to ultimately he's trying to seize property. But the housing, what I'm seeing is the left is talking about housing. I see it playing out as seizure of private property.

[00:02:15] So no one actually you don't have to worry about a house because it's the utility or whatever they call it now or it's a basic human right. But that means you actually don't get to choose your house either. It's just given to you. Absolutely. And there are two things he would try to take private property. And even more important, he will decide how it will be distributed.

[00:02:43] The key question in all his programs is who will control it, you know? And what is mechanism of control? And mind you, if you think about it, it would be typical totalitarian mechanism of control. It wouldn't be decided democratically. It wouldn't be decided according to merits of the people. It wouldn't be decided according to means of the people.

[00:03:09] It would be decided by some small close clique of people who will decide who gets what. It's typical Soviet Union and China, you know? Right. When the system of Soviet, of communist economy, which many people don't understand, is actually very simple. It's more than 90% taxation. It's hidden. It's not declared.

[00:03:38] But actually, people are paid less than 10 or 8% of what they earn. And then the government takes this money from the people and distributes according to their rules, according to loyalty of the people, of whom they like, of whom they don't like, etc., etc. And if you look at Mamdani's plan, it's very similar to that.

[00:04:09] It's to take as much as possible and then to redistribute it according to their rules. And middle class will be completely out of it. I mean, the main problem with large cities as we have now is that they are kind of repulsing middle class because they become not affordable to middle class. Right.

[00:04:36] And if you take New York, only poor people can live there because they get this whole project, all free apartment, etc., or really rich people can live there. Middle class can afford less and less to live in New York, as in many other large cities. But middle class is the nucleus of the city. You know, the city was created.

[00:05:06] All cities were created by middle class. If you remove middle class from the cities, it's destructive. And what Mandami reforms will do, they even will exaggerate this process even much more. The remains of middle class would be totally pushed out of New York, you know,

[00:05:30] and it will be a city of either welfare or very rich, you know, which is very unhealthy situation for any city. When you were just talking about who will control, one of the things that I thought about, you're right, younger people can't imagine the Soviet Union. They can't imagine the totalitarian state of China.

[00:05:55] It just, or even if they think of what's happening today in those places, it seems like a land far, far away where they can't imagine, especially the people who've just graduated from college and are in college, they do get government control because of what happened during COVID. They didn't like the government control during that period.

[00:06:20] And as you were talking about who will control, and I thought about Governor Gavin Newsom from California. In the middle of COVID, he said, you can't go to restaurants. You're not allowed to go to the restaurants. And then he was at a restaurant having a party and enjoying himself. And it's that kind of activity. That is a simple example of what it's like when you have this kind of overreaching government

[00:06:50] control, whether you call it socialism or communism or even totalitarianism. It's the elite set their own rules and everyone else is suffering. Yeah, it's a great example and great approach to the situation. Indeed, that may be the most immediate and the best experience which can be used to explain this situation.

[00:07:17] And one additional thing which is important with this example, communism or any totalitarianism is based on so-called rule by expertise. Yes. Which is just opposite to democratic rule.

[00:07:38] And the idea is that there is scientific theory, which is in Marxism or in Islamism and some revelation of Allah, et cetera. There is monopoly on truth. You know, there is one single truth and one theory which explains everything, right?

[00:08:00] So to rule society, we need only experts, which brings us automatically to single-party system, which are those experts who know everything about life. And that's where all the controls come. Because they know much better than you how you should live. You know, they are experts.

[00:08:28] Situation with pandemics in this sense was very similar. There were several so-called experts who actually told us everything, how we should do, behave, et cetera. What is typical, like with communist experts, so with pandemic experts, that there was not real, any real science behind it. It was no real expertise.

[00:08:57] But everybody accepted it. And when you give example of Newsom, he also followed that expertise. You know, it was, that's critical thing. You know, that it was ruled by expertise, which told everybody. And everybody said, look, if this expertise says so, we should all obey and follow it, right? They know better.

[00:09:22] Now, at the same time, there were many other specialists in biology and epidemiology who had different opinion. And they were. But they were silent. They were completely silenced, right? Right. Again, it's a typical situation for totalitarian rule. You know, that's why they hate dissidents. You know, because there was only one truth. There couldn't be other truths.

[00:09:50] And then came we with some alternative ideas, alternative truths, et cetera. Unacceptable. So, pandemics can teach a lot if we really try to analyze it from such political things and from the similarity, you know, with real communist and totalitarian system. And I think we can find even more examples.

[00:10:19] Maybe not as spectacular as pandemics, but still many other examples. And that, what should be done? Before simply saying communism is a horror, look at Mao Zedong, look at Korea, et cetera, which wouldn't impress, as I say, many young people. They say, yeah, maybe some were there, some in other countries, other cultures. Who cares? We are different. And communism here would be different.

[00:10:48] And so, you need to get closer to this. You need to get to its appeal. You need to explain how it would automatically bring to exactly the same consequences as it brought, which is not a simple job to do. And also, it requires some mass education in this direction, opposite to what they get at their schools and their universities.

[00:11:17] And that's a very great effort should be done and quite an endeavor, which also should involve a lot of funds and money because you cannot do it on a shoestring basis. Yeah, but it's absolutely necessary. We need to realize that we are in internal ideological war.

[00:11:47] We need to find this war. We need to mobilize resources. And also, what we need to say, to distinguish between political opponents and national enemies. And that's a difference. I have plenty of disagreements with Democratic Party. But I wouldn't equate Democratic Party in general with totalitarianism and communism. And I think that's a wrong approach.

[00:12:17] Because the right approach is to say, communists are not only enemies of Trump or Republicans or conservatives. Communists are enemies of our countries, of our political system.

[00:12:36] So everybody else, independent on the Democratic side or Republican side, should unite in the struggle against those people. And that was the case in the 60s and 70s when I just came. You would find maybe more anti-communists among Democrats at that time than among Republicans.

[00:13:04] And the most prominent anti-communist was maybe Henry Scoop Jackson, Democratic senator. And I came just after his death, unfortunately. But he was great anti-communist. And many others, I mean, I knew Daniel Patrick Monaghan, who was absolutely anti-communist.

[00:13:32] The main anti-communist organization in America at that time was AFL-CIO. George Meany, whom I knew. You wouldn't find such anti-communist among any conservatives. Maybe Reagan, I don't know. But many was absolute anti-communist. And even Kirkland, who followed him, who was his right hand.

[00:13:58] So American trade unions were anti-communist organization. That's a problem. That's a problem. That's what you should start to talk about and to talk to Democrat country, not to cut them off, but say, guys, it's our mutual enemy. Actually, they may learn something now from DSA at something.

[00:14:22] But we shouldn't cut them off and say, look, it goes along the party line. No, it doesn't go along the party line. As I said, there is difference between political opponent and national enemy. It's two very different things. And I think that we've seen that from Fetterman, from Senator Fetterman. He's had the courage to say no.

[00:14:50] Democrat James Carville, who's in Louisiana, who worked in the Clinton administration, is saying that what he's seen from the Democratic Socialists is against America. And just he says it's just craziness. And I agree with him on that. I don't normally agree with him on anything, but I agree with him on that. But there aren't many. There's a few more.

[00:15:18] But right now, Senator Schumer, Congressman Hakeem Jeffries are afraid to speak out against. They're terrified. Yes, they're cowards. They're simply cowards. I mean, I don't think they're—no, they're not communists. I mean, majority of Democratic Party are not communists. No, I don't think— But they're afraid. They're afraid? Exactly. They're afraid to challenge it. But, I mean, political situation will push them to do that because they will find it.

[00:15:45] But what I'm also saying, it should be also some gesture by Republicans. Okay. Republicans shouldn't be simply cut off all Democratic Country and say, oh, you are communism. No. Republicans should try to approach and encourage and say, let's try to unite on this particular issue. We have many differences. We will continue to have many differences.

[00:16:15] But let's make this issue a united issue of us. Let's stand together against totalitarian threat to our country. Not to Republican Party, not to Democratic Country, but to the United States of America.

[00:16:33] And I think it would be wise for Republicans, you know, to try to extend into this direction and to speak this way. Before we wrap everything up, can you talk about how you left the Soviet Union and came to America and you worked with President Reagan? I didn't work directly with President Reagan.

[00:17:02] I, as I said, I didn't work in the government. But I knew President Reagan. I met with him several times. I actually briefed him with other people before two most important meetings, just one day before Reykjavik and one day before his trip to Moscow. But even more, I knew very well George Shultz, with whom I spent also many years at Hoover Institution.

[00:17:32] But I also knew many friends. I had many friends, still some of them are alive, who were young generation in Reagan administration. They were my age exactly when I came, who played a very important role in Reagan's Soviet policy.

[00:17:54] Both in State Department and in Pentagon, such as Richard Perle and Mark Palmer and John Lenczowski in National Security Council. And with them, we communicated very frequently and they listened to my opinions. They seeked my advice. So I think I made some small impact then. How I got here?

[00:18:22] I was exiled by the KGB. It was a very rare case. And the reason for that was the following. After my friend, Shiransky was arrested. And then Yuri Arlov was arrested. And Sakharov was exiled. All scientists. Sakharov was a high caliber scientist.

[00:18:50] There was protest started by American scientists. And West European scientists. And they organized a boycott of scientific cooperation, which many, many scientists joined. And to Soviets, it was very serious and very dangerous.

[00:19:13] Because they were far behind in many areas, particularly technology, such as computer electronics, etc. And leading Soviet academicians and even generals warned top party officials that this boycott is very dangerous and destructive.

[00:19:37] And several of us who were also dissident scientists and who were on the edge of arrest. Actually, I expected it every day and I didn't have any doubts. Soviet decided to appease American scientific communities. Instead of sending me to prison and I would spend many, many years.

[00:20:05] They decided to force us out to exile us. So I was lucky in this sense. And actually, I'm grateful to many of my colleagues here who organized a boycott because it really helped me to come here instead of spending many more years in political labor camps and prisons. And then I came here. I was scientist.

[00:20:31] I started to work as scientist instantly at MIT and then at Stanford. So I continued my professional work all my life. It was two parts of me. I am scientist and I am human rights defender. And I continue both of the things all my life. What was it like meeting Reagan? Well, I respected him very much.

[00:21:00] And he listened. And he was a very nice person beyond everything, you know. And he really was very nice. But he listened and he asked very good questions. And I remember when I came, one of the things which I did in the Soviet Union, I created my own model of the Soviet economy.

[00:21:31] As, again, it was a combination of my scientific background with my descendants background. And from which I estimated this immense taxation. And I came to the conclusion that Soviets don't have any resources for, to increase their military buildup. They simply cannot do that anymore.

[00:21:56] And I shared this idea with a couple of good economists here who also became my friends. And then Reagan invited them and they told, let's go with us. They told Reagan. And three of us went to brief him on weakness of the Soviet economy. And the question which asked Reagan was very good.

[00:22:24] He asked, is it sick bear or wounded bear? Because wounded bear is very dangerous. Sick bear is not so dangerous. And we said, it is sick bear. It's really weak and sick now.

[00:22:43] And that's why I gave you an example of the question which he asked, which was actually a very, very important and precise question. So I think he was a very smart person. And he was the only American president, at least not only in my lifetime, maybe all time, who understood the importance of ideology.

[00:23:10] And that's what helped him to win over Soviet communism. No one of us, no one else understands what ideology is and how important it is. And he did. And that's what distinguished him and what made him so successful with communism. Because he knew that he needs to fight ideology.

[00:23:37] Because this is the heart of that system. And he needs to. And when. And he also knew that the only way to deal with a totalitarian system is regime change. And I know that many conservatives are against regime change now. But the most spectacular example of regime change is collapse of Soviet communism. And it was deliberate Reagan's strategy.

[00:24:05] When he said that the Soviet Union is evil empire and the place of communism is an ash heap of history, what else but the change of regime it is? It was explicitly formulated and precisely implemented.

[00:24:25] And all attempts to deal with that regime, to pacify it, contain it, et cetera, never work. As long as this regime exists, any totalitarian regime, any communist regime, any Islamist regime, it will continue an ideological war against us. It will do as much harm as possible.

[00:24:52] And it will support, by all means, all totalitarian forces inside our countries with bringing us so much trouble. You are absolutely right. Which is why we have to finish the job that we've started in Iran. It has to be done. Well, with Iran, it was the most difficult situation.

[00:25:20] If we already went military way, which I'm not sure was the best way to go in Iran, then the only way is to finish. Yes. And finish means completely destroy this regime. Because we have only two models, as I say. We have dealing with the totalitarian regime.

[00:25:45] We have what I call Marshall MacArthur model, which was realized with Nazi Germany and Japan, which was complete victory, total capitulation by that regime, occupation and control of the country, and eradication of its ideology. If you stop in the middle, you don't win, you lose.

[00:26:15] And what you also need to understand very clearly is a difference between regime, the regime, and the country. And the example which I give usually is the Soviet Union after the Second World War, 1945. The country lost 27 million people in that war.

[00:26:42] Much more than that's in Germany, not compared to the United States or Britain. It was completely destroyed economically. It was ruins. It was famine after 1945. So the country was, I mean, it was a victory, but it was a period of victory in a sense. The country was almost destroyed.

[00:27:06] But the Soviet communist regime was never as strong as it was in 1945. And it immediately went, as you know, without any delay to occupy all Eastern Europe, to expand its territory, etc. And that is a problem we are facing now with Iran.

[00:27:29] We need to understand that we haven't damaged yet this regime significantly. We damaged the country, even its military, etc. But so far, regime consolidated. And because by military means only, you cannot weaken totalitarian regime.

[00:27:52] You can either completely destroy it, or if you don't finish this job, it will become even stronger. And it will be a wounded bear. It will be wounded, but it would also consolidate its power, which it already did. And it already, actually, this whole operation, de facto, weakened Iranian opposition significantly.

[00:28:20] So regime became, at this moment, regime became stronger, and opposition became weaker, which is not the outcome which we want. But I'm not sure that America is ready to finish this job. You know, and that is a problem. Because I don't think you can do it only by drones and missiles.

[00:28:41] I think you must send many troops, send them inside, and it will take a lot of casualties. And you're right. I don't think Americans are there. And part of, well, we don't want war. We don't like war. Sure. And so I think that's part of the reason.

[00:29:11] And then the other part is that so many Americans don't understand the threat that Iran has been. They just simply don't understand. They certainly don't remember the hostages from 79 and 80. And they just, they haven't been taught the threat that Iran actually poses and has posed.

[00:29:36] And that, until they completely understand that, they're not going to have the will. Well, but I think... And maybe it's not fair to say that because when we ask them and we've polled on it and we explain that they have... When we explain the harm that they've done, the thousands of lives that have been lost and that they've been involved in this for 47 years,

[00:30:04] then Americans do want us to finish the job. But that means you constantly are having to teach more and more Americans until you get... Until they understand. Well, which is a long process, but we need to do something now. But I tell you what we can do. Americans don't understand not only danger of Iran. America doesn't understand danger of China. America doesn't understand danger of Russia, et cetera.

[00:30:34] What America doesn't understand, and I'm not sure that our administration understands it, that that's one united bloc which fights against us. And they actually say it explicitly. Not only they say, they show it. Russia helped Iran now fight. Iran helped Russia to fight, you know. China has helped Russia. China helped Russia, and China helped Iran, mind you.

[00:31:03] It's one united bloc. So you need... It's one global ideological war fought by this bloc. It's our war. What we have now in Ukraine, what we have in Gaza are proxy wars, classical proxy wars of global ideological war. And the main target is still United States. Ukraine is intermediate. It's not the main target. Even Israel is intermediate.

[00:31:32] Because as we know, they call America Great Saturn and Israel Little Saturn. Great Saturn is us. Yes. So what is important? If it is one bloc, first of all, try to find the weakest link in this bloc. And at this moment, it's not Iran. It's Russia. And I would say that the road to victory is Iran goes through Kiev.

[00:32:01] If we help Ukraine to win this war, mind you, the whole bloc will be significantly weakened, and Iran including, and first of all, after that. So maybe I would sidestep it for a moment. Because, as I say, there is no will and no in America to finish this job now in Iran. Maybe I should sub-state it.

[00:32:29] Instead, understand and explain that war in Ukraine is against us, and Ukraine is our ally, and Russia is our enemy. And we cannot be mediators in this war. We should take side. And taking the side, we can, should help Ukraine win. And it can win. Russia is weak. And it shows that it's weak.

[00:32:54] And that, as I say, will, with such a blow to the whole totalitarian bloc, to China included, it would, China wouldn't go on Taiwan after that. I can assure you, if Russia loses in Ukraine, China wouldn't go. But if Russia wins, they're going after Taiwan. Yes, yes, yes.

[00:33:20] Explain why Russia today is a problem. In this series, we have talked a lot about China with some of the other guests. And you and I have just gone through Iran. But explain why modern-day Russia is such a threat still to America.

[00:33:42] Well, if America still considers itself the leader of a free world, which I hope it does, then it should think in terms of the whole democratic world. And the situation in Ukraine and Israel is very simple.

[00:34:09] Ukraine started to move in the direction of democracy and join our camp. Israel is the only democratic country in the Middle East. And that's the main reason why they are under attack. So you should understand that this is attack against democratic world as such.

[00:34:34] And this is a war of expanding totalitarian domain and shrinking democratic world, which is all history of the Soviet communism. I mean, Soviets would never dare to attack America directly. But what they did, they did two things. They, piece by piece, they expanded communism to other countries

[00:35:02] and shrunk more and more democratic world. And they also did a lot of things inside democratic countries, not attacking them directly militarily. But millions of others, I have several lectures explaining this internal, how this communism had included, by the way, international terrorism,

[00:35:30] which was created by the KGB. All modern international terrorism was created by the KGB as one of weapons of ideological war. So if you have, is Russia in the same game? Is it together with Iran sponsoring terrorism now? Absolutely yes. I mean, don't have illusion.

[00:35:58] It's still the same KGB. It's still sponsoring all diversion, all other situation. Did Russia interfere in our election? Absolutely yes. And again, Trump and his supporters try to diminish it. I don't say anything about Trump being in collusion with Putin. No, I don't say anything like that.

[00:36:27] But we cannot deny the fact that Russia interfered in the election. And actually, the main goal of Russian interference in election was and is, is not trying to support one or another candidate. They try to discredit our democratic election system. That is much, much more important for that. And they do many of such things inside our country now.

[00:36:54] The network of espionage, the network of agents of influence, you know, is tremendous. I mean, they do a lot of destructive work. And yes, they do support these totalitarian forces in different ways, which Trump and MAGA hate so much.

[00:37:21] So you cannot be, on the one hand, you cannot say how nice guy is Putin. And hate, you know, all these work forces. You are very inconsistent. And consistency in ideological war is a critical thing. So yes, that's...

[00:37:43] And now, you know, Russia simply helps Iran kill American soldiers and destroy American bases, right? This is a fact. This is a fact that we know it. Yes. And it's something we're going to have to contend with, whether Americans want to or not.

[00:38:11] Because we didn't want to deal with the war on terror. We didn't want to... None of us were thinking on September 9th and 10th, 25 years ago. That, oh, I think we'll go fight Osama bin Laden in the war on terror. But it was brought to us and we had to respond.

[00:38:35] And right now, what is happening, whether we want to do this or not, we're going to have to... We are responding. And at least President Trump is responding in Iran. And he has done so in other... He's done that. But we have to. Russia is a huge problem. Yeah. And not to mention the fact what Putin does inside Russia.

[00:39:05] And if we still value human rights and political liberties, as Ronald Reagan did, and that's why he was the most supportive president of dissidents in the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe, because it's American values, you know? Yes. So you cannot ignore this fact.

[00:39:28] You cannot ignore now new thousands of political prisoners of Russia, political assassinations, which actually Putin is doing all over the world. And just recently, I don't know whether you saw the article of several attempts of political association by Putin on in the United States. I haven't seen that one. Oh, it's already there. It's confirmed facts. It was unwritten rules even in the Soviet time.

[00:39:59] Americans don't kill anyone on the Soviet territory. Soviets don't kill anyone on American territory. And the KGB followed it. They killed in other countries, but not in America. America didn't. Putin broke even that rule. I mean, he killed people in England before. He killed people in other places. But now he reached out already to the United States.

[00:40:26] I mean, again, you can close eyes on that. But I think that's quite disturbing. If on your territory and probably your own citizens, American citizens, could be killed by FSB or KGB, whatever you call it. So this fact should be.

[00:40:49] But that's a long story to discuss how wrongly many mega people perceive Putin. And they see it as fellow conservatives and all this stuff, you know. You know, I think that some of what I'm interrupting you and I apologize for that.

[00:41:11] I think that the people that the Russian influence has been so successful that the people in America don't understand that Putin is such a bad guy. And I think that a lot of it is coming through social media. And they're being fed. I think they're being fed Russian propaganda and they don't even realize it. Yeah. But also, there's another thing which is important.

[00:41:36] That most conservatives don't understand that conservatism is not an absolute concept, but a relative one. It's not political philosophy. But conservatism means adherence to basic principles and values of your society.

[00:41:59] So American, Reagan was conservative and Truman was conservative, American conservative. But Stalin and Brezhnev were also conservatives. But they were communist conservatives who adhere to communist values. So in this sense, Putin is conservative.

[00:42:23] But people who try to embrace Putin from here, they should understand that they would find themselves not in the company of Truman and Reagan, but in the company of Stalin and Brezhnev. Because that is Putin's conservatives. And that is very important to understand because it's very superficial understanding of conservatism, you know,

[00:42:51] which, because, yes, they, Stalin turned revolutionarily communism into conservative communism. And mind you, Stalin was proponent of democratic countries. I mean, Stalin was proponent of family values. Hitler was proponent of family values.

[00:43:19] Actually, Islam is proponent of Islam. So it's not what distinguishes us. What distinguishes us is human rights, political liberties, rule of law. That was most critical distinction. So the fact that Putin likes family values, it doesn't say anything that he is on our side and he is a good guy, you know. Yeah. That's a very good point.

[00:43:48] And one that is being made online right now about him. It's good that you pointed that out. As you think about everything that you know and what we're seeing in America right now, what is it that you think Americans should be on guard about? Totalitarianism. That's what I say.

[00:44:16] Totalitarianism outside and totalitarianism inside. And the understanding that they are related to each other. And one thing that, again, I wish it becomes consensus in this country.

[00:44:36] That the threat from the left is always more dangerous than the threat from the right. Totalitarianism. And that the whole history tells us that the main mistake of liberal community and even democratic community was that they were mistaken always in this point.

[00:45:04] They always thought that the threat of authoritarian right is more dangerous than the threat of totalitarian left. And it's the greatest mistake because as a result, they guarded against totalitarian right, I'm sorry.

[00:45:28] And they gave in and gave up to totalitarian left, which took all control over them and destroyed over them. And history is full of such examples, you know. And we see it again and again. And if you say, talk to democratic, I look, I am not apologetic about authoritarian right.

[00:45:58] I am a Democrat. I am human rights defender, etc. But again, I await the balance. Because the goal of totalitarian right is to take absolute control once and forever. That's the goal. It's never the goal of authoritarian right.

[00:46:24] They may want to restrain, restrict some political liberties, but usually only partially and always temporarily. And mind you, authoritarian right is always called to arms by emergence of authoritarian right is called to arms

[00:46:50] by the emergence of the authoritarian left and unwillingness of our center to take care of it. That's what actually eventually brings authoritarian country. So if you ask me who are most responsible for bringing some authoritarian forces in this country, in Western Europe,

[00:47:18] I can tell you it's liberal Democrats. Because they didn't do their job to resist radical left, communism, Islamism, etc. And they called, they relegated that to someone else. They actually called to arms the right forces here. So that's the main thing.

[00:47:47] Realize where the main danger comes from. And unite against this danger. Mind you, if you do that, the real far right authoritarian forces, which are still small in all these countries, but they would disappear.

[00:48:13] If there would be a strong response by majority of people to the authoritarian left, authoritarian right will be out of business. So that's the solution of this problem. Unfortunately, it's not easy to realize, as we'll say. No. No, it is not. What is the, this is my last question.

[00:48:36] What is the biggest lesson or lessons that you think that you've learned standing for and fighting for human rights, basically your entire life, that you want others to know? My knowledge that human rights is the best thing which humankind invented.

[00:49:02] It became the foundation of the best country and the best model of the society, which is the United States of America. It served as, and it continues to serve as the strongest weapon against totalitarianism. And we should cherish this concept. We shouldn't let anyone to steal and pervert it.

[00:49:30] And we should keep at the center of our values and our struggle. And particularly in this year, which celebrates, this year actually has two dates. It has 250 years of Declaration of Independence and 50 years of a foundation of Moscow-Hersinki Group,

[00:49:59] which I was a member of, which was a main human rights organization. And I still see myself and my friends as the main successors of the founding fathers of this country. In new age, under very new circumstances, but we raised again the importance of human rights in this world. And this year, with those two anniversaries,

[00:50:28] I think, calls to all of us to cherish this crucial concept and to educate all young people about it, make them understand how important it is, which is not done enough, unfortunately. But, and that, I think, and that also gives us positive,

[00:51:00] most positive things in our struggle against communism, any forms of totalitarianism, et cetera, because we cannot be negative only in the ideological world. We cannot simply say that this is terrible, you are bad, et cetera. That's not good enough. We need to counter it with really great positive values. And definitely it's human rights and political liberty,

[00:51:29] which are of them. And explain how they are important and how they are important for the society and how important are for human beings who, if appreciates them fully, you know, he feels really good. I can't speak about myself, but I think it's true for anybody else, you know.

[00:51:58] Yuri, I don't know if I can get your last name, but Yarman... Yarim Agaev. Yarim Agaev. Thank you so much for joining me today. Thank you for standing for human rights and for not walking away from that when it would have been easy to just go enjoy America's freedom and not fight, not continue to fight for it. Thank you. But to me, it wouldn't be easy because I already devoted so much and risked so much for the struggle

[00:52:27] that I never would give it away so easily. That was Dr. Yuri Yarim Agaev. In our panel discussion, he talks about how the real tax rate in the Soviet Union was 92%, even though the Soviets said that the rate was 13%. He makes the argument that he believes every single communist system carries a time bomb and that no army and no secret police

[00:52:55] can ultimately save it. That was in the second panel discussion. And it's also where we put up famous photographs like of Tiananmen Square and the Romanian flag with a circle cut out of it, asking the people from those countries to tell us what we're looking at. So be sure to check out that episode. Now, also, I'm urging you, please vote for liberty and for our constitutional republic and against communism. And if you would,

[00:53:25] please share this episode and the others in this series or at least parts of them with your friends and family so they understand the real-life unintended consequences of communism and socialism. And if you found this episode worth your time, please go ahead and hit like and subscribe. It's how these conversations reach more people. I'm Jenny Beth Martin, and this is the Jenny Beth Show Surviving Communism Series. If you enjoyed today's conversation,

[00:53:54] go ahead and hit like and subscribe. It really helps us reach more people who care about liberty and the Constitution. You can find this and other episodes at JennyBethShow.com as well as Facebook, YouTube, Rumble, Instagram, X, and your favorite podcast platform. The Jenny Beth Show is hosted by Jenny Beth Martin. The Jenny Beth Show is a production of Tea Party Patriots Action. For more information, visit teapartypatriots.org.