 Okay, we are back guys, hopefully somebody is watching, hopefully you know we're back, give it a few minutes and everybody is going to be back, hopefully. Let people know in the other stream to come over here if the chat over there is still running and Cam is doing it again, I thought I solved the problem but I haven't solved the problem. Screen still tearing but might not be fixable in a reasonable time frame, looks like it's not. The something about the equipment on the road was working the other day, so who knows, maybe it's bandwidth, I don't think it's bandwidth, I think this is it. Alright, let's get going, I want to tell you about my talk at University of Utah yesterday, it was the Federalist Society, so it was at the law school, it was on free speech and western civilization, that title created quite a stir in the universe on the campus, not only is free speech questionable these days, but it turns out the western civilization is not a concept people like or people support, it's a little, I don't know, west centric or something in a multicultural world, it's not acceptable. So anyway, so we got a good turn out for Fed Sock is one of the largest Fed Sock events I've done, Utah law school is a relatively small law school, it's compared to say Harvard or something like that, and we got like 70 students which was fantastic and most of them were not Federalist Society students, so they were students from the law school but from outside the Federalist Society, many of them leftists and as a consequence there was a really good mix of questions, really challenging, real positive back and forth. It was videotape but I think really, really poorly unfortunately when I rely on other people to do this, it kind of works out, it doesn't really work out usually but they said they would videotape it, they said it would have high quality. Anyway, we'll get some videotape, we'll get audio, we'll see if it's any good and if it's worth publishing but the Q&A was particularly excellent, lots of challenging questions, lots of attention to insult me or to catch me or to get me at a contradiction or to put me into a corner or to, you know, what they were really, a lot of them were trying to do is pigeonhole me, right, you know, is he a conservative, is he a liberal, they couldn't figure out what I was, they couldn't figure out where to pigeon me so that was a lot of fun and hopefully that will be out at some point and you'll be able to, you'll be able to enjoy that and benefit from it but so that was a good event, thank you to the organizers, thank you for putting it together and yeah, really good event and then today Leadership Program of the Rockies, which is always really good and was fantastic, talked about capitalism and I'll be doing that again, I'll be coming back to Denver for the Leadership Program of the Rockies in January, I do two of these talks a year for the program. One is on what is capitalism and has capitalism, is capitalism produced good results and the second is the morality of capitalism so I did the practical side on January, I'll do the morality of capitalism. All right, let's see, all right, so let's talk about World War 3, what a topic, right, but I think it was a good clickbait but more importantly, it's a topic everybody seems to be talking about there's a lot of discussion out there about World War 3, it is I think in the minds of many, many people a real possibility, I think people are looking around the world and they're seeing a war in Europe, a major war in Europe, a major war between two very well armed military forces on the continent of Europe, I don't think anybody expected to see that. They see a war now in Israel and everybody is looking with a lot of caution and a lot of angst towards China and to see what's going to happen with China and Taiwan. So I think that's one reason why there's a lot of angst, there's a lot of worry when the world sees Russia and China aligned with one another and the two of them aligned with Iran and Iran being behind Hamas and the Palestinians. That I think is a source of significant worry if you add in North Korea, North Korea is aligned with Russia, it's providing weapons and ammunition to the Russians and in a sense if each one of those is a separate conflict, if each one of those is a fragment, then it's no big deal and there's a conflict in Ukraine and there's a conflict in Gaza and there's a conflict maybe in China, Taiwan and each one of those can be dealt with independently and it's probably not that big of a deal, or the Taiwan would be. The challenge becomes is if you start seeing them as a pattern and if you start seeing it as the Russia-China Iran block as a block that is challenging the United States and the West and once you see that then there's reason to worry, there's reason to be concerned and to that the fact that there's a lot of talk out there in the world about the global south, about BRICS, the kind of BRICS being Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa as being an alternative to the West about an alternative currency, new currency to replace the dollar. So there is this real potential of more and more and more real, sustainable angst and people really worried and seeing this not in terms of independent, unrelated conflict but it's part of now a real, not yet world war, but a real global challenge. The global south plus China, Russia, Iran really facing off against the United States and the West and then if China invades Taiwan does that become a real world war? Does it become a real world war even if China does not face off in Taiwan? If China just continues to support Russia and if it's willing to support Iran and willing to support Hamas in the Middle East, what does that look like and to what extent does that evolve into a world war? So it does, I mean there is a realignment, a global geopolitical realignment going on right now that I don't think most of us really saw coming. I don't think almost anybody, well there are some exceptions but I don't think many people expected a war in Ukraine. I don't think many people expected China to move towards authoritarianism as quickly as it has to reject kind of the liberal, the trend towards liberalization as quickly as it did and then I don't think people expected China and Russia then to align somehow with Iran. I mean both China and Russia, both China and Russia have an Islamism problem. Both China and Russia are threatened by Islam. China has the Uighur problem in western China which they are dealing with with concentration camps and with collective punishments on a massive scale. China has had Islamist problems, they certainly had it in Chechnya. If you remember the two Chechnya wars, talk about killing innocents and flattening cities. What Israel is doing in Gaza is like kids play as compared to what Russia did in Chechnya. Nobody said anything at that time. It is interesting and this is just as an aside here. People wonder why everybody jumps from criticizing Israel to anti-Semitism and I think the main reason a lot of us jump from people attacking Israel to a broader idea that this is motivated by anti-Semitism is the fact that Israel is not doing anything that other countries have not done. It is not happening right now as we speak in a lot of other parts of the world, Sudan where the Islamists are slaughtering men, women and children, where there is a brutal civil war, Russia in Chechnya war, Yemen right now with the Houdis and the civil war in Yemen where hundreds of thousands of civilians are casualties of that war. Not a peep out of the world. Not a comment. Nothing. Israel is defending itself. Clearly defending itself. Clearly responding to aggression. Clearly responding to an enemy committed to its own destruction and the whole world goes apoplectic and every story now has ceasefire somewhere in it. Oh, there is this happening and what about the ceasefire and this happening? But what about a ceasefire? Israel has some more responsibility to do a ceasefire. Why? Because civilians are dying in Gaza? Why didn't Hamas think of that? Aren't they the responsibility of Hamas? Anyway, we've talked about all that. You've got a situation where Russia and China are aligned with the Islamist regime which they shouldn't really be aligned with because it's not their friend, it is indeed their enemy and they know it's their enemy. And they've taken action against Islamists in their own countries. But it is an alliance of convenience. It's an alliance of convenience focused on one thing and one thing primarily and that is to be anti-U.S. So is this the precursor for a world war? Are we heading towards a major conflict between Russia, China, Iran and the Global South? I don't know what the Global South is. Is that Brazil, Argentina? Is it all of South America? Does it include much of Southeast Asia? Does the Global South include... Is India part of this because they're part of BRICS? Does it include Indonesia, Malaysia? Does it include South Africa? Does it include the rest of Africa? Nobody really says. They talk about a Global South as if it's some kind of, you know, one thing. One block. And of course it's not. Are there countries in that block who would like to join Russia and China in attacking the West and in the U.S.? Maybe. Maybe. Not clear. Who? So there's a lot of hand-waving when people talk about the Global South and people talk about this idea, this potential. This potential of World War III. So it's not clear who the combatants are. You can see Russia and China. You can see Iran is clearly being hostile to the United States and to Europe. But what does a World War III mean? A World War III would mean, you know, Russia and China being willing to engage militarily against the United States and Europe. NATO, maybe against Japan, South Korea, Australia. Kind of a Western, if you will, alliance. Does that seem feasible? Does it seem that that's where they're heading? Now, I think there's at least two parties that you could imagine would be at least be floating with that as a kind of interesting idea. One is Putin, who I think is a megalomaniac and really embraces conflict with the West and believes in some kind of Russian destiny to achieve. But the thing about Russia is that in such a alliance with China and with Iran, Russia is clearly a junior partner to, sorry, Russia is clearly a junior partner to China. Does Putin really embrace a role as a junior partner? Does Putin really want a conflict with NATO? He's having a hard enough time with Ukraine. Ukraine is under manned, under equipped. It still has mostly second-tier weapons systems from the West. Russia is not fighting against F-35. It's not fighting against the full military force that a NATO could put together, that the United States could put together. And it's not doing well. I'll argue about how badly it is doing. But clearly it's not doing well. Does Russia really want to expand that conflict to armies that I think it is quite reasonable and obvious would completely annihilate it and destroy it? Well, certainly not alone, but would it be willing to do it together with China? And that puts into question, what does China want? Does China really want a war with Russia? Does China really want a war right now? A significant war, a big war with the West? Does it want to risk losing? It's on this path that at least until a few years ago seemed to be leading it towards riches, to its success, to its power. Does it really want to jeopardize whatever path it's on for the sake of a war now? Risk losing? It probably would lose. Do either one of those Russia or China want to risk nuclear war and annihilation? Does it strike me that China or Russia are suicidal, that the leadership is suicidal? China has ambitions, ambitions that I think are more realistic and are more substantive than Russian ambitions. But those ambitions first have to be achieved on the economic wealth front inside China, before China can be dominant internationally and can take on the United States militarily. And it's no question China knows this, they're not delusional, they're not as crazy as I think Putin is. So what is the incentive China has to go to war with the United States? I think the only incentive they would have, I think there are probably two circumstances that they would do it. One is if they thought they could win. I mean, they thought they could win decisively, that the odds were clearly in their favor. And I think that's unequivocally just not the case. They would cause a lot of damage to the United States, even in a conventional war. But their chances of winning are below 50%. I mean, their chances of taking Taiwan are not that great as a tiny island with a small military. But partially because America and Japan and South Korea might come to Taiwan's defense, but also just Taiwan as a strong military and amphibious landing and all of that and the terrain. Not easy, none of that is easy. So China's not going to engage in a war that it is likely to lose. It'll wait. And I think the Chinese believe, I think falsely, but they believe that they will get back on track to economic growth. They will back on track to economic wealth. They will grow. They will achieve. They will succeed. They will become the richest country in the world. They'll invest heavily in the military. And then, and then they will take over the world. Then, well, maybe not take over the world, but take on the United States and take Taiwan. I also don't think China has ambitions, let's say, to occupy the United States in the same way that I do think Russia has ambitions to occupy Europe. I do think Russia has ambitions in its fantasy world to basically control all of Western Europe. I don't think China has those ambitions. Its philosophy doesn't drive it. It wants to be the respected, dominant player in the world. It doesn't necessarily want to rule the entire world. So I just don't see China's motivation to launch into World War III. The other reason it might do it, when I said is if they thought they could win. I mean, thought confidently they could win. The second is, if things are so bad in China that the only way for Xi to survive somehow is to launch a war. But I just don't, I don't see that. I mean, Xi has complete control of what's going on in China. There's no real opposition to him. And I think a war would completely destabilize his world. There's no reason to believe that a war would actually solidify his control over China. Quite to the contrary. So it is, as I said, I am skeptical about China's incentives. Iran is different. But Iran here, it has to be clear, is the junior-junior partner. Iran has no economy to speak up. It has oil exports. But the oil export terminals could be taken out basically in a day by an air attack by Israel or the United States. Iran has global ambitions. Iran wants the domination of Islam over the world. Iran, in some mystical unattached from reality sense believes that that is possible. Iran wouldn't mind nuclear war because it is a suicidal death-worshipping ideology that many of the people who control Iran have. They share that with Hamas. But Iran has no military force. It has no real military standing. It poses no military threat to the West. Israel, the United States, Western Europe, NATO could annihilate the Iranian military and the Iranian regime in a matter of hours if they chose to do so. There is no military threat that Iran poses to the West. It only poses a military threat to the West because the West won't do anything. I mean, American bases in Syria and Iraq are being attacked almost every hour, maybe twice an hour, and the U.S. is doing nothing, zero, zilch. That makes Iran seem incredibly powerful, but they are not. Three countries that want to create mayhem in the world, they don't share interests. Russia has its iron, its empire in Europe. China has an iron being a dominant economic and ultimately military power. Iran wants to control the world through Islam. They don't share much in common, except the hatred of the West, the hatred of Israel, which is surprising coming from China, but I guess not so much. The hatred of the West, the hatred of Israel. But no positive framework, no, I don't know, communism, global communism. We're going to instill communism all over the world. No global vision for the Arabian race and space for the Arabian race. Russia wants Europe and it wants to expand its territory, but it's not some global ideology driving it. There's just no basis to take this to World War III. There's just no there, there. They would lose, and they would lose pretty quickly, depending on how it developed, but there's no incentive. The main party at such a war would have to be China. China is the only country in the world today that could feel the military, that could challenge, if at all, the United States and its allies. So without China, nothing goes. Russia's not going to cede leadership from World War III to China. China has no interest in going to war so that Russia can take Europe, so that it's a distraction. But there are territorial disputes between China and Russia. Who gets the rule of Asia? There's massive competition between China and Russia over who gets the influence of Central Asia. The Stans, the various countries that are Stans. There's just basically no rational basis, or for that matter any basis. There's never a rational basis for war. There's just no basis for these countries to launch World War III against the United States and Europe. Now, we could get there by accident, I guess, that would have to involve China invading Taiwan and then Russia expressing sympathy with the Chinese and somehow United States getting enmeshed in defending Taiwan and not being successful and the Iranians using that opportunity to create format in the Middle East. So you can imagine something descending into a kind of World War III scenario where there's fighting going on in Asia and Europe and in the Middle East, all kind of guided by the same alliance. But even then, a war in the Middle East cannot be sustained if Iran is really at war with the United States and the United States takes out the Iranians. War in the Middle East would end pretty quickly. Israel can defend itself for the most part and whatever resources the United States has in the Middle East could be deployed to Asia or to Europe or whatever is needed. Again, if NATO got into this war, the Ukrainian war would be over a long, long time ago. And then what do you do? Do you take Moscow or do you fear nuclear war? So you just hold them at the border. I just don't see it how the pieces come together. Now, I'm not saying there will never be a World War III because the real impetus for a World War III is not China, Russia, Iran. The real impetus for a World War III is not the strength of our enemies. It's not the strength of those countries. It's not some alternative competing ideology. There is none. It's not like Russia has an ideology other than Russia. That's the ideology. It's not like China has an ideology. Their ideology is not communism. It's not exactly anything. It's Chinese philosophy applied to China. It's control. It's the Chinese Communist Party, which is badly named because they're not communists, controlling China. But there's no, like the Soviet Union had this notion of global, you know, just like a global jihad, a global communism. There's no, China has no ambitions for global communism. Iran has ambitions for global jihad, but Iran isn't a significant player. So it's not the strength of their ideology that would lead to World War III. What could lead to World War III? The weakness of the West, the capitulation of the West, the lack of any kind of ideology and any kind of belief in any kind of self-esteem in the West. It is the West's collapse that could lead to World War III. If the West descends into chaos, if the West descends into, you know, if it starts shrinking economically, if it goes into real stagnation or worse, real depression, if the United States cannot keep up its military, if its military starts to decay because we don't have the funds anymore because our government is bankrupt, to actually keep up maintaining our ships, maintaining our tanks, maintaining our airplanes. If NATO starts splintering and fighting with each other, if Israel doesn't have the courage or the determination to finish the job in places like Gaza and ultimately in Iran, if the United States just leaves the Middle East with its tail between its legs and never takes care of the enemy, that kind of weakness, which we are already exhibiting, which is already part of the West, but that could lead to war, that could lead to somebody, Russia, China, Islam, taking advantage and trying, trying to test, poking the West, poking the United States, instigating wars and ultimately that could develop into a World War, but it won't happen as long as the West is strong and the West is not because of any particular virtues right now, the West is strong because of a history, the West is strong because we still have the best military force in the world and we're very rich. We're very rich because of our past, not so much because of our present, but because of our past, as we become poorer. I think China, Russia, Iran become poorer as well, but as the West becomes poorer and if that poverty accelerates, if that really speeds up and becomes a real force, people will want to take advantage of that, people will start chipping away, people will start poking at us and people will be willing to risk a World War in circumstances like that. So I have to admit that in the world in which we live right now, over the next 10 years, let's say, 15 years, I do not believe we will face a World War III. We're going to face a lot of challenges. I still don't know how Ukraine is going to end because I don't know that the West has the resilience to continue to support the Ukrainians when they fight against Russia. I have no doubt the Ukrainians can win if they get the kind of support they need from the West and they need to win, they have to win in order to make clear to the Russians how weak they are and how united and strong the West potentially is. That is what keeps the barbarians at bay. What keeps the barbarians at bay is our strength. Our weakness will only encourage them. I don't know exactly how things are going to work out in Gaza. I fear that Israel again will not do everything that needs to be done. It's doing more than it's ever done before, arguably. And it isn't finished yet. But will it go all the way? Will it do what is necessary? Will it destroy Hamas? And more than that, will it destroy the will of the Palestinian people to continue to fight Israel? Because Hamas is not the problem. I know this is politically incorrect to say. But Hamas is not the problem. The problem is the Palestinian people. The problem is that overwhelming majority of the Palestinian people want to continue a war with Israel. We have to worry about Taiwan and China. And China will continue to test us and test the Taiwanese. China will continue to do that. But again, I think the likelihood that China becomes much, much stronger than it is today is small because China is facing massive economic problems that are not going to be solved easily and only going to get worse. China is not going to become as rich as it believes it is. And I think that if we continue to supply weapons to Taiwan, Taiwan will only become stronger and only become a more substantial enemy, a substantial challenge for the Chinese. Well, you have to keep an eye on China. You have to keep an eye on Taiwan. I don't worry about Taiwan. I worry about Israel, but I don't worry about its survival. Israel is strong. It's not going to do everything it needs to do to crush the Palestinian people's will to fight it. But what Israel can do is it can kick the can down the road. All Israel is doing now is what Israel will do is to guarantee that war will continue. But it's not going to represent the individual more than the disgusting, horrible retreat of the United States from Afghanistan guaranteed a dead end of the United States. No, it was another sign of weakness, perpetuation of a war with Islamism. But Israel's U.S. is just not going to disappear. So I have to admit, I'm not right about World War III. I'm not worried about external threats. I worry about internal threats. I worry about the disappearance of freedom in the United States. I worry about the decline of economic liberty in this country, a personal liberty in this country. I worry about the state growing and growing in power no matter who is in the White House or who runs Congress. I worry about the tribalism in this country, about the hatred that dominates our political discourse. I worry about the fact that our politicians cannot get anything done and a lot needs to be done in order to dismantle the power of the American state. I worry about Donald Trump getting re-elected and moving us another few steps towards authoritarianism and a complete breakdown of the American system of government. So the United States is where the problems are. I worry about the fact that Europe, because of the European Union, because of the regulatory state that is the European Union, is not growing economically, sees no real innovation. Entrepreneurship is in decline. And at some point, Europe would start turning against itself. At some point, when there's no economic growth, Europeans will start thinking of it as a zero-sum game. The Germans will start resenting the Italians who resent somebody else, and you'll get strife within Europe. So the real challenge we face is not a World War III. The real challenge we face is the weakness of our own countries. It's the lack of any kind of unifying philosophy. It's the lack of any kind of ideals. It's the lack of any kind of values. It's the lack of any principles, and it's a lack of a focus on freedom. And right now, it's hard to be optimistic about the direction the United States is heading. I mean, in spite of the horror of a first Trump presidency, we're going to get a second one, maybe. And if not, we'll get a horror of a second Biden presidency. I mean, talk about horrors of horrors. I don't think we're going to get a civil war. I fear much more that we ultimately attract a charismatic authoritarian leader. But even if that doesn't happen, what I do see just is slow decline. What I do see is the country struggling to pay its bills. By the way, the government would probably be shut down a week from now. Not because anybody wants to shrink government significantly, but because you probably can't just don't have a clue what they're doing. I worry that the Western world is going to fragment, disintegrate, turn against each other, be weakened and destroyed from within. Europe has a massive Muslim problem that it's going to struggle with and is going to have to deal with for decades to come and is not equipped to deal with it. It doesn't know what to do. The United States has a leftist problem, but it also has a right-wing problem. It has an incompetence problem. It has a tribalist problem. And of course, all of this leads to the economic stagnation, no development, no growth, no innovation. And that ultimately would lead to military weakness. And that could lead to a World War III in 10, 15 years. I'll still be alive, I guess. So, yeah, it's depressing out there not so much because of Russia, China and Iran. I don't really worry much about Russia, China and Iran. I don't think you should worry much about Russia, China and Iran. I think you should worry about what's happening inside America. We should worry about what's happening inside Europe. I mean, we should stand up to Russia, China and Iran. We should do all kinds of things to stand up for them, push them back, delay, weaken them to the extent that we can. And in the case of Iran, we should just destroy them. The real challenges, the real cause of a World War III, the real cause of real disaster in the West is going to be the West. What we need is what we've always, what I've always talked about we need. We need a philosophical revolution. We need a real dramatic change in the philosophy of the culture in the West, in America. And without it, again, for talks and for days, you have to say that the ignorance out there, the, I mean, the ignorance, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt that it's mostly ignorance, is astounding. The lack of understanding what America is about, what it stands for, its value, what it represents, astounding. The lack of knowledge of any history, of any understanding of history. Astounding. We can't survive as a civilization with this level of ignorance and this extent of bad philosophy. So World War III is more likely to be a slow decline. Maybe then it'll be a World War. There might not even be a World War then, it'll just be a slow decline. And that's what I see in the West today, a slow, slow, slow decline. Alright, on that wonderful optimistic note, there's not going to be a World War III anytime soon. That's optimistic. I'm making a prediction. We'll see. Maybe I'm wrong. Let's look. Alright, we've got a bunch of Super Chat questions. Thank you for the Super Chatters. You too can ask a question in Super Chat. Let me remind you, this show is sponsored by the EinRand Institute. And if you go to EinRand.org, slash, let me find this. Yeah, slash, start here. You'll find a lot of information about the programs that EinRand Institute. So, as you know, EinRand, EinRand wrote that the fountain was a guidepost for young people in the world of very few guideposts to find. She called it a confirmation of the spirit of youth. It's exactly that spirit that we need today. EinRand Institute is currently experiencing a huge influx of demand from young people requesting EinRand's novels. One request every 20 minutes. One request every 20 minutes. Hundreds every day. On Tuesday, November 28th, we're celebrating the success and the inspiration of EinRand's novels that it gives us, as well as young people who are seeing, who we're seeing read them for the first time. We're going to do a celebration of this. It'll be Tuesday, November 28th at 2 p.m. East Coast time. We'll be talking about the work that EinRand Institute does, the exciting progress the Institute has made. You could go to EinRand.org, start here to learn more, and sign up. So, don't forget to sign up for this important event. That is going to happen on November 28th. You can do that now at EinRand.org, start here. All right, let us go to Super Chat. Don't forget you can support the show on Super Chat or with a sticker. We've got a lot of people watching, 170 people watching right now. We're about 200 short of our goal. So, please consider supporting the show. You can support the show monthly. You're on bookshow.com, support Patreon, and subscribe. All right, where you can search your own book show. Let's start with Richard. Richard said, this is $40. Let's make 60 out of 100 for a song review. I did the last 20 on what I thought was a live show, but it was an applause. I sent you an email with a screenshot when it happened. I appreciate that. Just send me the name of the song you want me to review. Okay, Chad. Do altruists have to value justice in order to support injustice to make a worthy sacrifice? No, I don't think it works that way. You know, it's not that the... Oh, God, we need an example here to think about this. So, do altruists support Hamas rather than Israel as a form of injustice, because they think through and they say, oh, yeah, Israel is in the right, but what I actually want to do is sacrifice so I'm going to support Hamas. I don't think that's what happens. Altruism is internalized. It becomes, if you will, automatized. It's part of their value response. They value Hamas because they're altruists. It's not that they... And they think Hamas, the justices are Hamas because they're oppressed, because oppression defines justice. The sacrifice is internalized. It's not, oh, I need a sacrifice today. It's not how altruism works. It conditions your thinking to make you sacrifice, to drive you towards the action that is a sacrifice or the idea that is a sacrifice. Hopefully that's a clear chat. Okay, Liam says, I can see how nationalism and existential crisis can bring people together to take life and values more seriously. Look at Israel. Those people love intensely. Yeah, but it'll pass, right? So it's not... Crisis does not change minds. Crisis brings people together for a while. It allows them to challenge the status quo for a while. But it doesn't change anything fundamentally. And it is still the case that as soon as the crisis is over, they go back to the old habits. They go back complacency. I don't think Israel has changed. Israel doesn't love intensely because of nationalism. I don't even think Israel loves intensely because of existential crises. Israelis love intensively because they have a good life. Because they value their freedom to some extent. And because they have a set of values that dictates that they want to change the world. They want to do stuff. They are motivated. They are productive. And I think that's what leads to intense loving. It's intense living. And maybe that is intensified by an existential threat. I don't think it's intensified by nationalism. I don't think nationalistic people love more intensely. They might love strangers more. That's a really risky proposition. I don't think they love, in the sense that we mean love, more intensely. James, what do you think of Mauritius? Mauritius, the country. Does it have potential to be another Singapore? Are there any islands or places that are going to be great to have residents or place to live in during World War III? How does Southeast Asia come into play in World War III? You know, I don't know much about Mauritius. There's no reason to believe that it's going to become a Singapore. Singapore was Singapore because it had something very, very rare. It had a benevolent dictator who was inspired by the West. A benevolent dictator who was inspired by, you know, British common law, by a system of freedom, of contract law. Somebody who understood that economic success comes from entrepreneurs who are left free to innovate and produce. And even there, they're not completely free in Singapore. And yet, you know, it's also a culture that restricts freedoms in other dimensions across many other dimensions. I don't know that you're going to find another place that's exactly Singapore. And who would be the inspiration when Singapore came into being? There were lots of inspirations. The West generally was an inspiration. But the West since then has become such a mixed bag and unprincipled and doesn't have any self-esteem and doesn't stand up for itself. Freedom, free markets are not inspiring. So I just don't see it. Is there a place that could become the next Singapore? I mean, Singapore, you know, World War III happens. You could go to Singapore. Would Singapore be safe? I don't know. I mean, it depends how the World War III comes about. But look, if China lands up having territorial ambitions, if China wants to dominate Southeast Asia, then why wouldn't it occupy Singapore? Why wouldn't it invade Vietnam and try to take Taiwan and that whole region? And maybe World War III happens because of a conflict between India and China. And if a conflict between India and China, that whole region is going to be affected. I don't know if you want to be in that region. So I don't know how you are saved, where you are saved in World War III. Now, again, I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon, so I wouldn't worry about it. But where do you go? I don't know. You know, maybe South America is not part of World War III. It's not clear anybody is going to be seeking. It's not close to anybody, any of the combatants, right? Russia, Europe, Middle East, in flames. Who's going to go to Latin America? So maybe somewhere in South America, Uruguay. Uruguay is a relatively, it's between Brazil and Argentina. It's a relatively free place, relatively good rule of law, relatively stable, relatively low crime, relative to South America. Uruguay, maybe Uruguay is a place you want to go. A lot of the rich of Brazil and Argentina have homes in Uruguay and plan to escape there if things get really bad. So, but I don't, I think, if you assume China's going to be involved, I'd be wary of choosing any place in Asia. All right. Thank you, James. That was a $50 question. I really appreciate it. Okay, here's $100 one from not another account. All right. Not another account, it says. Great shows. Given that the only way to finally defeat an enemy is to destroy its will to fight, it seems to me that the only way to decisively end Islamic terrorism is to demonstrate that Allah is impotent by destroying the holiest mosques in Mecca and Medina thoughts. I mean, I have no objection ultimately, particularly after 9-11, to destroying Mecca and Medina. But I'm not sure that would do it. I'm not sure that would be enough. Religionists have the capacity to rationalize things like that quite well. Suddenly Islam has been defeated over and over and over again, and God has not stood by them. So it is, they can rationalize it away. I don't know what kind of Mecca and Medina, attacking Mecca and Medina, what impact that would have on Islam. I'm not sure surrender is what the response would be. The basic rationalizations could be, we have not been dedicated enough to, so God is sending out a message. It could be, this devil of the West is even a bigger devil than we thought. Look, the only way to defeat the enemy is to defeat the enemy. First identify it and then defeat it. What destroying Islamic terrorism requires is a multi-pronged, coordinated attack on the bastions of Islamic totalitarianism. That means the destruction of Iran, of this regime in Iran, not the country but the regime, the elimination of its military, of its national guard, of its ability to export oil, of its institutions of governance, of its institutions of government and including its institutions of learning where they learn this kind of interpretation of Islam. So I think it requires the taking out of Iran. Second, it requires the taking out of the various organizations that are affiliated. Now taking out of Iran will go a long way to taking these institutions out because they take one ally and they want those of capital. But that means Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood, and all the varieties there are, which again I don't think would be that difficult to do once Israel, the United States, together are committed to doing it. The West, NATO are committed to doing it. Third, it requires that the Gulf states Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf states abandon the radical form of Islam explicitly. Right now they pretend, well implicitly and explicitly, right now they pretend but they cultivate radical Islam on the side. They're afraid to challenge it directly. Saudi Arabia has to be made to understand that to the extent that they will protect the radical Islamists, to the extent that they support them, the United States will either draw support for them or just replace them, just get rid of the kings of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has no sense of how, well it does have a sense but we don't exploit that sense. How dependent MBS and the rest of the Saudis are in America, how much they need us, a hundred times more than we need them. We need to make that very clear to them and demand that they pacify whatever elements of radical Islam they have within the regime. So I think Saudi Arabia needs to be dealt with. I don't think militarily is necessary but it needs to be dealt with. It needs to have a solid understanding of who the boss is and who they cannot offend in terms of supporting organizations. It's still true the charities in Saudi Arabia, the Wahhabis are still popular in Saudi Arabia, are still supporting Islamist, theocratic organizations and schools and learning all over the world and that needs to stop and it needs to stop yesterday. That's how you defeat them. It's just no other way. I don't think a bomb on Mecca and Medina would be enough. I think you need to do that plus everything else that I said or if you do everything else I said I'm not sure you need to bomb Mecca and Medina. Michael says, I had a prof tell me Hitler and the Nazis were copying the American ideal manifest destiny as justification to expand their empire. When people make giant leaps in logic they have to be dishonest and motivated by evil. That is clearly dishonest. That is so evasive of reality. It's definitely that is evil and it's driven by a hatred, a hatred of America to associate America in any way with the Nazis is just the peak of dishonesty. And it's a hatred of America which a lot of people have unfortunately. Out there both the left and the libertarians seem to embrace that hatred of America. So no, the manifest destiny is not a manifest destiny of a race. The manifest destiny is the destiny of a country that is a country based on a moral principle the principle of individual rights the extent that it was used in various periods of time to justify racism, racism is bad but that racism never elevated itself to the level of the Nazis. And when it did like through slavery there was a civil war in the United States that eradicated and even then the slavery was not everywhere in the United States it didn't infect vast parts of the United States. Harpa, Vivek's absolute asinine and dishonest comments in Ukraine and his constant kissing up to Trump are pathetic, he has lost my vote I think DeSantis is the most competent and reasonable choice. I certainly agree with about Vivek I mean Vivek is just becoming nuttier as he becomes more desperate as he drops in the polls and is becoming more desperate for attention he is becoming nuttier he is a guy who I don't think is stupid enough to believe in conspiracy theories but he is ridiculous comments in Ukraine and even some of his comments in Israel and his comments about building a wall on the Canadian border and going to war with Mexico are all nutty and crazy and this guy should not be allowed in the White House of course we're going to elect Trump so we don't have standards in terms of sanity and the White House but yes I think Vivek is particularly bad I think his sucking up to Trump is awful and I think his but I think his positions in these issues he's got a lot of good stuff and it's sad to see the mixture of a few good things he has to say with all this really really bad stuff really really bad stuff with DeSantis you know I don't like DeSantis I don't think he's a good choice I think in many respects he's terrible but I would take him over the alternatives other than I still think the best candidate out there is Nikki Haley I think she's in some polls leading DeSantis I think she could win I definitely think she could beat Biden I think she'd be a decent I think she'd be a decent president you know not a great president and you know I don't think Vivek wants to be a VP I don't think he has any chance in hell that Trump takes Vivek as a VP candidate Vivek is too charismatic too energetic too domineering for Trump to take him on Trump needs somebody subservient he needs somebody like Mike Pence I mean the only person who might have a chance is Nikki Haley I don't think anybody else on that stage is going to be a vice president so candidate with Trump JJ Jigby's if the uproar driving anti-Israeli sentiment is fundamentally anti-Semitic what is driving the pro-Israeli sentiment the issue brings our passion in people regardless of relations one may have or not have with either side look I think the modern left and the modern left I did a show on the left anti-Semitism I think the modern left is necessarily anti-Semitic just because of the logic of a presser and a press and viewing everything from the perspective of a presser and a press Jews are too successful therefore they must be their presser therefore we must be anti-Jews in that sense they're anti-Semitic they're anti-Jews for being Jews so I think the modern left is indeed anti-Israel and anti-Semitic and it doesn't mean everybody who's anti-Israel is anti-Semitic but it does mean that some people are in a significant number of people on the modern right the same thing the modern right is anti-Semitic you can see it in their statements in the way they articulate not as anti-Semitic you see it in the fact that they don't talk about annihilating Israelis they talk about annihilating Jews so I'm not sure what the issue is so to pro-Israel is to be pro-Israel it's to be somebody there are a lot of reasons why you would be pro-Israel you're pro-Israel because you're pro-American you see Israel as an ally you're pro-Israel because you're pro-individualism and you see Israel as standing up relatively for individual freedom as compared to the barbarism of Hamas you see in the geopolitical scheme of things it's good for the West if Israel wins you're pro-Israel because Israel's fighting the same enemy as the United States fighting there are a lot of reasons to be pro-Israel that don't have to do pro-Jewish or anti-Jewish but the reality is that the reasons people have for hating Israel the oppressive you know the success of Israel the label of Israelis as oppressive is something they can easily and do extrapolate about all Jewish people and anti-Semitic as well I think I understood the question let me know if I did not Lyron what inspired the positive sense of life in the 1800s how does it differ from what influences today's negative sense of life that's a great question what inspired the positive sense of life in the 1800s was the enlightenment in the 1700s it was a philosophical revolution that elevated reason elevated human competence human ability and one of the things that is common to the enlightenment and is a theme throughout the enlightenment is the possibility and the virtue of progress of the future being better than the past is a new idea because there was never been progress in the past or very little progress in the past so the idea that progress was good and progress was achievable and progress was doable and there was no limit to it the idea that human beings were able, competent could understand the world and achieve great things in the world comes out of the enlightenment and finally the idea that happiness is achievable the pursuit of happiness and arguably a unifying fact of the enlightenment is the idea that happiness is achievable individuals should pursue happiness and try to achieve happiness and that unifies at least the moral thinking of the enlightenment so it's an overwhelmingly positive view of the world an overwhelmingly pro-man view of the world an overwhelmingly pro-reason view of the world an individual view of the world and that drove this sense of life a happy positive, engaging sense of life man's competent and able to be on this earth and be successful on it switch to the 20th century certainly since World War I man is fallible but worse he's riddled with original sin not just coming from Christianity but from our secular philosophers there's a whole topic there we'll talk about it another time man is fallen so in a sense taking Christianity more seriously a sense that progress is not that good suddenly we get that today progress has limits progress is bad bad for the environment let's say the whole environmentalist issue people are going to end the world individualism is bad individualism means isolationism depression detachment from the good an embrace of collectivism at least the beginning of the 20th century an embrace of nihilism towards the end of the 20th century it all boils down to cons the evil thing that cons did which is separate reason from reality that is if reason is impotent impotent there's no reason to have a positive sense of life if reason is impotent things are not going to go well if reason is impotent we can't know reality we can't know the truth we're dependent on mystics we're dependent on religion life sucks the world sucks yeah so it really does boil down to respect for reason in the 20th century at least qua intellectuals we've seen a dramatic decline in respect for reason which is filtered through the society that has led to a deep pessimism whether it's on the left environmentalism on the right traditionalism they're all fundamentally pessimistic about the future pessimistic of that state of man pessimistic about the ability of human beings to be successful in the future and that is destructive for sense of life alright Howard how should the U.S. and Israel deal with Qatar I mean the U.S. should first of all leave Qatar Israel should be fear free to assassinate bomb do whatever is necessary in Qatar to destroy the people the Hamas operatives who live in Qatar Qatar should be told without any question to the extent that they are funding terrorism they are target on a list of targets for both Israel and the United States that is if they send money to Hamas they become an enemy of Israel and Israel has the weapons systems to destroy them and it will it's a tiny little country with very little resources other than oil and no real military capabilities in Israel or the United States destroy them to the extent that they support ISIS or Qaeda or Hamas or any terrorist Islamist terrorist organization that poses a threat to the United States or Israel Thomas says yes I would have had many things to criticize about the U.S. in 1941 but I would have been 100% pro-American in World War II equally one can have criticism of politics of Israeli government of Israel in this conflict absolutely and that's me right I was very critical of the Netanyahu government have been for 20 years 30 years 40 years I mean my whole life I've been critical of the Israeli government I can't remember time where I was happy with the Israeli government I've always criticized them I've always thought they were terrible and yet in this conflict I'm 100% behind them because when you're facing with evil you've got a side with whatever elements of good they are in the world to destroy the evil and we're facing the kind of evil that Hamas presents is the kind of evil the Nazis represents it's the kind of evil Stalin represented in some ways worse because it's backed by a religious theology that justifies everything they do that gives them a certain they relish blood they relish slaughter they relish humiliation they relish rape and pillage I mean the Nazis try to hide what they did Hamas puts it up online for all the world to see they're proud of it they call up their mothers and talk about how many Jews they've killed today so there's a there's a an evil like it's very rare this kind of evil to see in the world human beings really have to be depraved to reach this level you've got a side with whatever elements of good they are and Israel fundamentally is a good country very critical of almost every aspect of what they do and yet they're still fundamentally good libertarians many libertarians can't make that distinction the state government is evil and therefore there is no states that are better and states that are worse they're all evil because they tax you I said this and people are horrified but then people actually wrote on twitter exactly what I said yeah states commit evil that doesn't make them all the same some states are more evil than others some states because the state fundamentally is a good thing this is the difference with libertarian in that they preserve peace some states the positive they do outweigh the negatives they do they want to see the negatives gone but I'd rather take I'd rather take a state like Israel or the United States than Anarchy any day JJGB says I guess my point is this this issue gets people on both sides riled up like no other if anti-semitism and anti-oppression explains one side's passion what explains the other side's passion especially people with no skin in the game well first I don't think it riles up on my chat complaining that we spent too much time talking about this issue and then I'll riled up I think what gets them riled up is what I just said the evil that Hamas represents the sheer barbarism and the fact that that barbarism is not only relegated for Israel people still remember 9-11 terrorist attacks and in London and other places they know what these Muslims Islamists are capable of so they get very riled up because they see this correctly in my view as an existential threat how do you stay neutral how do you stay calm how do you stay unriiled up when you see barbarians raping and torturing young men of course that riles you up and it should rile you up and it's happening to a western country it's happening not in conditions of barbarism in conditions of civilization so it's one thing to say well this happens every day in Africa yeah Africa's a barbaric place we expect it we don't it's not a direct threat on us we're fighting each other in terms of barbaric civilization cultures but here it's within a civilized world this is happening that I think outrageous people and I think it's true I think there's a difference if these things happen in the United States or in Israel or in Europe or if they happen in you know the Republic of the Congo which is a place with no real government a place of tribal warlords fighting that has never really had a civilizing force how can we tolerate this under civilization is what really riles people up Michael says in the future if in the future we will be able to genetically engineer geniuses will we be able to produce billions of iron rands no because it's not an issue iron rands genius is not genetic nobody's genius is genetic genes are component but they're not a major component to make an iron rand a young iron rand had to make certain choices had to create a certain spirit had to create a certain human being that she became that doesn't happen because of genes genes give you the raw horsepower they don't give you the road map of how to use the horsepower way to take it they don't give you the road map of how to use the horsepower way to take it so you'd create a lot of geniuses maybe but you wouldn't create a lot of iron rands James says is tachocosin an anti-Semite I don't know I don't know I haven't seen his commentary in Israel or in Jews or in anything else so I don't really fully know but I also think that tachocosin doesn't really believe in anything tachocosin believes in building tachocosin an audience is in catering to the tachocosin audience tachocosin believes in being on the fringe and because that's where you get the most passionate dedicated audiences on the fringe not in the center and that's what tachocosin is he dabbles with conspiracy theories he dabbles with all kinds of nonsense whether he believes any of it I'm skeptical I think he does it because he knows his audience I think he thinks I think tachocosin thinks that most Americans are dumb really really really dumb and that he can exploit that he can make money off of it he can achieve fame and fortune because other people are dumb Bonnie says did Biden force the ceasefire shameful yeah no question you know not the first time not the last time I don't know if there's a ceasefire my understanding is there's this pause for a pause but yeah all of this is engineered by Biden but with the full cooperation of people like Netanyahu and of course the Europeans are putting a lot of pressure on and so on so but yeah it's shameful but if you believe that Trump, Bush, Obama Reagan would have done anything else you're delusional they all would have done exactly the same every American president every single American president has tied the hands of Israelis and forced them to retreat and to announce ceasefires before their time including Donald Trump there were incursions, there were problems with Gaza during Donald Trump's presidency it's not like he gave Israel a thumbs up going and do whatever you want to do it's not what American presidents have done any of them it's amazing how effective altruism is at floating abstractions it's so automatized that it impulses in emotional literature absolutely completely automatized into the culture and therefore into us as individuals James says intellectuals today have become masters of using the most words possible to say absolutely nothing I don't think it's intellectuals today I think this has a long tradition particularly in German yeah maybe it's the absolutely nothing that is is more unique to today at least in those days in the 18th century, 19th century they had the pretense of saying something now they don't have even a pretense James says is Germany the most intellectual culture in Europe ironic that German philosophy explicitly seeks to destroy the intellect it is ironic is Germany the most intellectual culture in Europe I don't know Northern Europe is generally very intellectual so is the UK but I don't know I don't have any measure of who's more intellectual than the rest and what that even means if intellectuality boils down to post-modernist nonsense is that really intellectualism what do we count as intellectualism I don't know that's a whole topic I'm not sure about Michael says it's hard for me to believe all this anti-Israel activity is calculated anti-Semitism do most people think about Jews that much no it's not calculated I mean nothing here is calculated and I never suggested it's calculated I don't think people think that much about Jews they feel it and when you stimulate them they blame the Jews I mean it's not like anti-Semitism in Europe was calculated mostly the Nazis were calculated but usually anti-Semitism was just a response to the other to the idea of the other causing mayhem and causing destruction it's embedded into American culture on the left because of what I talked about the other day which is the left's obsession with dividing everybody up into oppressor and oppressed because of intersectionality and other things and Jews because they're successful are always going to be the oppressor and Palestinians because they're poor are always going to be depressed and that drives a lot of this attitude towards Jews in Israel Michael a bit of a topic but do you regard addiction as a disease that strikes me that low will power self-esteem isn't a disease well it depends what we mean by addiction I think the definition of addiction has dramatically shifted over time if you talk about addiction as something like addiction to heroin I don't think it's a disease but it's clearly a biological condition that is very very difficult to overcome and requires medical care to overcome it it's almost impossible to go cold turkey on heroin without having really really horrific side effects what we have today is a pseudo addiction epidemic people addicted to tobacco not really you know I know so many people who just went cold turkey is it hard? sure a lot of habits are hard to give up is there some small biological addiction of tobacco that the body has? sure I crave coffee am I addicted to coffee I can't stop tomorrow if I really wanted to and I go days without drinking coffee and I might feel a little bad as a consequence but does that mean I'm addicted to it? so I think there are certain drugs there are certain chemicals that clearly are addictive and that cause a real physical response if you try to go off of them but is chocolate addictive? I mean some say it is you know is pornography addictive? is sex addictive? no all of those things are not physiologically addictive there's psychological habits and it's just a matter of will and it's just a matter of you know again anything you put a bag of nuts in front of me and I start eating nuts it's hard to stop does that mean nuts are addictive? I can't stop if I deploy enough will to do it so the fact that something is hard does not mean it's addictive addictive should mean some kind of biological resistance to stopping it and a significant biological resistance not a mild one and look there's probably variation across people some people are more addictive to stuff than others is alcohol addictive probably for some people there's even genes associated with that I don't find it addictive but I don't abuse it either Hopper Campbell says what did you make of vivix sexist remarks to Nikki Haley he's a sexist he's trying to put it down he's trying to do everything to put it down and part of the tactic is to try to shake her up a little bit and try to destabilize her so she comes off as credible he realizes who the enemy is I hate these debates they're stupid debates they're anti-intellectual they play into the hands of people who throw bombs they play into the hands of the Trumps and the vivix of the world instead of you should have five minutes to answer questions or at least two, three minutes to answer questions not one minute one minute to answer the questions are stupid they're nothing from them they're sound bites, they're well prepared that's not interesting the ability to deploy insults or to deflect insults that's not what I need a president to be able to do I need to be able to president to be able to think I need a president to be able to be decisive I need a president to be able to have good ideas debates should be about ideas they should be about the implication of those ideas for action and you should be able to see and experience whether these candidates have the knowledge the foresight and the commitment to really govern properly alright we have a lot of questions and I need to leave in a little while so we're going to do these quickly do you consider yourself more hard to work than John Galt? I don't consider myself either one of those I can't think in terms of John Galt and how I would work they're both inspirations they're both things to strive towards I'm neither a genius in architecture or a genius in anything really nor the perfect human being which is John Galt I just can't see myself in those I'm much more I'm much more sympathetic to Dagny which are reared in the name to work and John Galt who are complete who don't change who struggle very little you just know exactly what they are and what they want to be and what they want to do Clark says it's hard to calibrate the nihilism level in the culture and amongst intellectuals maybe they're not fully nihilistic enough to want to tear it all down yeah they've got nihilistic elements they're not suicidal enough to tear it all down but they do enjoy tearing when they have a chance to do it you saw that during BLM you saw that in the relishing of what Hamas has done Liam says Obama's comments literally made me nauseous he has no boundaries on his narcissism well I mean there are people who are more narcissistic we've had a president who is more narcissistic than Obama by quite a long shot Obama's problem is he's intellectually corrupt but Obama actually has an intellect whereas Trump is just narcissism with no intellect Richard says in the 1960s presidential JFK and Nixon had three minutes to respond do you know what changed culturally since then their ideas weren't great but they were forced to get into specifics on policies and be more thoughtful yeah I mean what changes we've become a television addicted soundbite addicted culture that wants instant gratification and is much more interested with entertainment value than with ideas and with actually policy recipes we've taken the JFK and Nixon narcissism to a whole new level and we're really not really interested in anything more substantive than what we can get in a minute answer that these guys gave and what we want and demand from our candidates are insults and what get them points are the insults I mean Donald Trump taught us that he called one of the one of the debating partners ugly he accused the other you know he made accusations about family members of others he was just horrific but he was entertaining and he won the nomination people have learned that's what Americans want at least that's what Republicans want Liam says I was listening to Rashida Talib getting hysterical about Israeli genocide and ethnic cleansing I'm surprised she didn't scream Allah Akbar and detonate yeah I don't think she's quite suicidal but she's definitely hateful she's definitely hateful and irrational and emotionless no question Ed what would the response be if Israel decided at some point to destroy Iran's oil fields especially U.S. response oh the U.S. would be horrified the U.S. would slam sanctions on Israel they would stop supplying them with weapons the United States would go apoplectic price of oil would go up Americans many Americans would turn against Israel I think Israel should do it but let's not be naive about how America will respond America hates that idea and doesn't want to war with Iran and doesn't want to instigate anything and wants to keep the oil flowing all the things the oil keeps flowing James says we're living in times when the bullies when the bullies are winning because the good people are submitting and they have to submit because they don't have Iran well yes but they have to submit because they don't have principles they have to submit because they don't have you know any kind of principles it doesn't have to be pro-life principles Iran is the end result but you know the West didn't submit Americans didn't submit to the Nazis or to the Japanese there were values in America that prevented America submitting without Iran and they can be resurrected without Iran but some values need to be what we have today is a complete void of values not just Iran Richard said I just finished Arthur Herman's biography of Douglas McArthur very much worthwhile reading perhaps one of my favorites this year the decisive of his confidence he exuded seems very far and compared to modern leaders yes I mean that's true of Douglas McArthur it's true of Patton it's true of many of the leaders unfortunately the guy who got the most credit for World War II and ultimately benefited by becoming president is Eisenhower who was the wimp opposite of Douglas McArthur and Patton but he got rewarded for his wishy-washiness by becoming president of the United States Richard Cummings can you think of a better example of pseudo self-esteem than Donald Trump no I actually can't and I've said this all the time Donald Trump does not have self-esteem that fake confidence that insulting everybody that inability to take a blow is the science of a pseudo self-esteem which is exactly Trump we still have quite a few questions too bad all the energy put towards supporting the Palestinians isn't being put towards supporting the Iranian people no kidding those Iranian girls could benefit from the support you think the feminist would be all over that no no no they'd much rather attack Israel Black Cat 997 the United States and Eurozone South Asia Dwarf China and Russia with regard to economics level of technology yes and there's a consequent level of the military people underestimate us and don't understand how large the mismatch it really is absolutely I agree with you completely Black Cat 997 Matthew given the reporting of back and forth strikes between US and Iran or Iranian proxies would you say that we are effectively at war with Iran without either side wanting to outright declare it yes but I think we've been at war with Iran since 1979 and we're too cowardly to acknowledge it and to declare it but yeah no question and the United States keeps this back and forth without doing anything substantive and without dealing with the Iranians directly but that's been going on since 1979 Michael says does a humanitarian pause mean that the hostages get to come home for the weekend asking for 240 friends what do you think of course not all pauses all ceasefires are one sided they only involve Israel because Israel is strong and therefore it needs to be reigned in Hamas is weak therefore it should be allowed to do whatever it wants James says do you still recommend London as a place to live based on how things have changed in the last three years is there any hope for the UK to rebound I don't know I mean UK is in bad shape for a lot of reasons economically it's a disaster the Conservative Party has completely abrogated all its responsibilities and anything good it had the police there's a whole I'll talk about this in a show in a couple of days the police in London won't reign in the Islamic demonstrators they're too cowardly, they're too afraid basically the police in the UK have taken the stand that they're pro-Muslims and against any Brit that stands up to them UK is deteriorating fast in front of eyes I still love London it's still one of my favorite cities in the world I still love being there but the UK as a place to live is becoming more and more difficult and more and more challenging because of the Conservative Party's failure just disastrous policies and because of what they're letting Muslims get away with in London I'm not afraid of Muslims I'm afraid of Muslims uncontrolled by police I'm afraid of the lack of the rule of law which is what UK is moving towards Asterix says keep up the good work you're on thank you J.J.Jigby says that answer thank you, thanks J.Jigby Frank it's the last word I think I asked an anti-capitalist to watch shock tank and the food that built America he did he was unimpressed and viewed entrepreneurs as exploiters why? well because shock tank and I don't know what the food that built America is these are not serious attempts to present the value of entrepreneurship but the value of businessmen I mean you got to do better than shock tank shock tank is a joke most of those businesses don't survive anyway they certainly don't thrive you've got to go to the heart of what you've got to provide history you've got to provide context you've got to show the difference between life under non-capitalism and life under a little bit of capitalism the difference between the two and it's massive so shock tank is not a good example of anything positive it's entertainment it's not business it's entertainment it's a name that disguised this business capitalism isn't about shock tank capitalism is about freedom about liberty it's about the use of the human reason capitalism is about reason and individual rights and that results in entrepreneurship but entrepreneurs I mean if you don't have any respect for reason then you don't have any respect for entrepreneurs if you don't have any respect for the trader principle the trade what trade means if you think the world is just some game you don't have any respect for entrepreneurs they just exploit us if you think all labor is physical labor you're not going to have and shock tank is not going to teach you the value of entrepreneurship it might motivate some yahoos to go and start a business because they see pretty mediocre businesses being started in shock tank but I don't know of any significant business significant business that was started on shock tank sorry Silicon Valley you want to do a reality show that would be cool alright sure it can be inspirational for people who already are inspired by entrepreneurs it's not going to create the inspiration and by the way if you look at the companies the shock tank have funded they don't do that well they're not that successful alright we're $24 short of our goal hmm we've got 197 people watching right now live there's a lot of people watching live right now that are not supporting the show please do so with a sticker or with a contribution through patreon or paypal but please support the show I'd really appreciate that value for value I could use something you consume it pay for it make sense also 197 people watching right now please consider please subscribe if you're not subscribed already subscribe I hear that 100,000 subscribers the algorithm really boosts your content so we've only got 65,000 to go so please subscribe to the channel so we can get a little closer to the 100,000 today alright Frank asks truly the final question if you want to support the show do it with a stick and not with a question because I do have to go he says dark days Jews are highly rationalistic in contrast to Islam which is dualistic which forces them and power oriented as an absurd mockery of monotheistic religion Islam bedfellows with modern ideology no I mean Islam has a lot more in common with Christianity than it does with modern left ideology Islam is a universalist religion it wants everybody to become Muslim just like Christianity wanted everybody to become Christian Islam is a religion it is based on faith faith oriented I don't think Islam is similar in any respects to the left the left supports Islam not because it's similar but because the left supports anything that's anti-Western civilization and it embraces Islam, Islamists in particular because they were anti-Western civilization and Islam is a particular bad religion because it never went through an enlightenment it never went through a renaissance it never was secularized Christianity and Judaism are awful religions but they were secularized secularized in the renaissance in the enlightenment alright thank you Frank thank you to all the super chatters thank you to all the people who did stickers whose names I didn't catch really really appreciate the support we made our target and thank you to all the people watching again don't forget to like the show before you leave just click that like button we put the algorithms a lot oh Abhazee just did the first super chat he's ever done a super chat contribution thank you Abhazee please like the show and please subscribe if you're not a subscriber you'll be notified when I go live you can always unsubscribe if you land up hating it but the most subscribers I have it helps with the algorithm as well likes, subscriptions comments all of that stuff is very very helpful alright I need a run, I'm meeting with some people for dinner I will see you all next show will be on Sunday Sunday evening at 8pm put a weekend time which is 7pm east coast time see you all then, bye everybody and thank you