 Ie ddim o'r bwysig y cifreannau, ac mae'n i ddim yn dweud o bwysig i ripple i'r cyfnodau? Yn y gallu, mae'n eich cifreannau mewn bwysig, mae'n ceisio'n cifreannau. Mae'n gweithio'n dylunio'n cydadaeth i'ch fan yr invitell mwyfysig. Mae'r bwysig i'ch ddweud o'r bwysig y cifreannau... ...addech chi'n gweld i'i gyngor i'r ymddangodant yw'r cyflwyno'u cyfrydonol yn cerdd书 wysig... gyda gynhyrch o'r ddweud o'r ddweud, ond, ynddoch yn Ysgrifes, ond yna'r ddweud, ond mae'n ddweud o'r ddweud i'r llaw. A dyna'r ddweud, yn ffaith, mae'n ddweud i'n ddweud i'r llaw, ond mae'n ddweud o'r ddweud i'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud, y gyda i'r llaw i'r ddweud i'r llaw o'r ddweud i'r llaw i'r llaw i'r llaw i'r llaw i'r llaw i'r llaw i'r llaw i'r llaw i'r llaw i'r llaw i'r llaw. felly wedi cael ddweud yr ysgrifes na allan ydych chi'n adnoddiad cyfan o'r cyfrannu. Fally ond ychydig ryw meddwl amgylchedd a yr adnoddiad ar ddweud, a bap bydd ymgyrch cyfrannu, ac mae'r cyd-dyndog yn gweithio'r cyd-dynfyrdd, a yna'r gwahogion yn ei wneud yn ymgyrch o'i ddweud. Mae'r cyd-dynwyr yn ymlaen, ac mae'n cyfnodd ymlaen, mae'n gallu bod yn olygu os yng Nghymru. Yn y gallu bod yna'r gymhwynt hwnnw Steve? Y Llywodraeth Ffyrraeddol yn ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud yn ymwneud, ac mae'r cyffredinol i… mae'r cyffredinol, mae'r cyffredinol gweithio. Mae'r cyffredinol o'r cyffredinolio, mae'n cyffredinol, a�i'n gweithi ym mhlic, mae'r cyffredinol gweithio ar ben agur. Felly, Acita, mae'r cyffredinol ddysti'n gyffredinol gyffredinol i Wyrthyn, Ie dwi'n dechrau eich gwirio, gyda chi'n gwirio'r fflaen i ddechrau'r Lai Q, o'r cyfwyr iawn i ddylch yn gyllid gyda'r Lai Q? Mae'r cwmhag amser i Lai Q, y ffordd eich holl ddweud yr eich gyfwyr iawn i'r Lai Q. Mae'r cwmhag amser i Lai Q, oherwydd y ffordd ychydig i Lai Q i'r Lai Q, oherwydd y ffordd eich holl ddweud yr eich holl ddweud yr eich holl ddweud yr llai Q. I did not say that the IQ of black students at Harvard is lower. I didn't mention that. The point is this. If you take, I can give you another example. There is a series of the national assessment of education progress tests given to by the US government to a broad section of Americans children 1st grade, 3rd grade, 6th grade in all sorts of fields. The average black 6th grader can solve a science problem as well as the average black 12th grader can solve a science problem as well as the average white 6th grader. But the interesting point is if you just take the children of black and white college graduates, the difference between the races is greater than if you take all blacks and whites. But that is Galton's law of regression to the mean. It's a fundamental law of genetics discovered by Francis Galton who was Charles Darwin's first cousin and he did it with height. If you have individuals, he was actually doing with plants, any plant or animal. If the parents are abnormal for their gene pool on a given genetic factor, they all spring regress about halfway to the mean of the gene pool. Galton never applied that to intelligence. It was another man who made the Stanford Bernay intelligence test. I can't remember his name. In California, who noticed that the children of poor uneducated Jews and Oriensals did better, had higher, did better on the intelligence test than the children of wealthy educated white Gentiles. He realized this was a regression to the mean of the gene pool. Only later was it seen that that also applied to blacks and whites, that there's a very strong regression to the mean of that gene pool. Now, for instance, I'll give you another instance, at any given IQ of the parents, black children are 13 times more likely to be mentally retarded in the United States. In other words, the children of black parents with a 120 IQ have much less of a chance of being mentally retarded than the children of black parents with an 80 IQ. But the children of black parents with a 120 IQ are 13 times more likely to be mentally retarded than the children of white parents with a 120 IQ. If I might say something about affirmative action, Harvard has been a controversy in recent years led by Henry Lewis Gates, the head of the African American Studies Department in the Montyl University of Harvard Law School. They've been pointing out, it hasn't been very popular what they've been saying, they've been pointing out that Harvard's African American students are largely not really African Americans. There are a lot more like Morocco and Obama than there are like Michelle Obama. The African American students of Harvard tend to be either white parent or grandparent, or are immigrant stock from the Caribbean or Africa. For a while, I'll give you a classic example. Michelle Obama is genuine African American descendant from slaves on all four grandparents' sides. And when people think about affirmative action, they often think about it as compensation for slavery. But like in the case of Harvard, they're just basically, they don't, basically they aren't coming up with enough Harvard quality students so they're reaching out and taking in all sorts of foreign students. Have people like Morocco or Obama raised money in my account? So, when you're in the band, Gates has been pointing this out, and we've got the ones to pick up on. Let me, that's part Professor Hoplatt assisted my talk in 30 minutes and for three weeks I went over it at least an hour a day, forcing out sentences and paragraphs and single words to get it down there. But that would have been part of it when I said, the vast majority, I show this in my book, the vast majority of blacks who receive or benefit from affirmative action in the United States are immigrants or the descendants of immigrants who came out after 1965. And that survey, well there was a survey conducted among Harvard undergraduates by a black student, the Harvard administration tried to stop the survey. She came from the United States and she was completely black and she said when she told her, when she asked the black students, a black fellow student asked her where she came from. And she said the United States, they replied incredulously, no, where do you really come from? If you do not consider the smart humanistic criticism of the one that you have been confessed by an undergrad, making the count of the endless work of the other class, they do indeed seem to constantly have a political problem given the civilized society. This is an understanding of the way it is from the portrayal and the material in the character of the responses. For example, in Austria-Hingagon, which has been made compulsory, that was supported by the scope of writing on parts of the crowd, the part of the population, the majority of the immigrants are incapable of transmitting of a big problem of crime after which some of the data is described by the righteous of the children. What response does problem go like, which was unhandable with the liberty of those who are still capable of varying responsibilities? Let me try to address these part of that question. I suppose you were asking me, what would I do if I had control over the situation? One thing, I would vastly limit the number of immigrants that come into these European countries. For many reasons, one of which is that it is very difficult to assimilate them, increasingly difficult to assimilate them to a national culture. Another reason is that many nations are in a state of disillusion, self-aggression in the case of the Germans, and therefore there's nothing really to assimilate them into other than hating themselves as Germans and if you're a terrorist, I suppose you believe that. The fact is that it's actually a very interesting article, which I read in the German newspaper, I think it's actually a thought about on my insight. There's something about the tourists who come into Germany who now want to accept guilt for the Holocaust. People who reach that state of self-degregation shouldn't be trying to assimilate other people. They should hold these extremes to build their own problems without trying to absorb other populations. I think the amount of immigration is unrealistic if one wishes to preserve any kind of national identity in these countries. My national identity is something other than teaching them democratic universal rights. We'll teach them something that is culturally specific, which relates to those people. There's always the story told about the Senegalese who had a study about the Muslim sect that they thought about. They actually weren't, but they would talk to think of themselves as friction. Obviously, people don't think of themselves as admirers of the Hofstraurs or Kaiser Wilhelm or Bismarck. They really have no identification with these countries where they are coming to live and there are parallel societies in which the political class is setting up. I think, as a first measure to deal with these termally ill nations, or perhaps termally ill nations, I would try to remove the immigration problem as much as I could. I would also accompany them if I would not give any kind of special treatment to those immigrants who are there. If they can make crimes, they should be deported at once, even if they are not subject to the aid that they are legally there, they should be removed from the country. But I think it is also important simply to end the kind of immigration flood that has been coming into Europe. If it is very, very seriously, and for these nations to sort of take stock of themselves and to try to understand the requirements to be nations. Part of this has escaped through immigration from what they are historically. There is a desire to use their identity in something else, a kind of multicultural world. I think they really have to come to grips with this emotional, the sheer emotional problem. Immigration is not going to work. Immigration is going to act to crime, it's going to act to social problems. The only ones for them to benefit are the social workers and the governing class which is involved in re-socialising the indigenous population. I'm not altogether keen on the notion of an underclass at least in Britain because the problem is much wider than that. I was, for a time, the vulgarity correspondent of the British newspaper that was not at all completely immune from vulgarity. But they used to send me wherever the British were gathering and behaving badly, which of course would more or less wherever they would gather. On one occasion they sent me to a so-called friendly football match between Italy and England. Of course Rome hadn't seen anything like it since 410. There are about 10,000 people in the crowd and they were all shouting obscenities for hours on the end of making what were very similar to fascist surveillance. I think I was the only one after 10,000 who walked. At half-time it would all calm down a little. I spoke to the Japanese and said to them, excuse me, that you don't mind me asking this. Why have you come all this way to shout obscenities at the Italians for hours? He said, well, I have to let my hair down. The point about these people who were behaving so badly was that they were all middle class and that they had very good jobs. In fact they were auctioneers from Southerners, perhaps I wasn't surprised at the revelation about Southerners, but they all had very good jobs. So there is at least in Britain an idea or a reversal of the shouts switch of what is considered good and bad. So that we now, I don't know whether you know the lines from Paradise Lost, but when Satan is expelled from heaven he says, evil be now my good. That is what has happened to a larger set in Britain. So the problem is not one of immigrants in my view. The fact that we have abandoned our own attractive characters makes it impossible for us to absorb immigrants. When I look at the behaviour of people in Britain and I try to look at it with the eyes of an immigrant, I can't see why they would wish to integrate themselves into this. I think the collapse of the European ship would be the international war with the two governments. I'm not a fortune teller, but I'm not a fortune teller, so I can't presume to know the future in any regard, including this one. But I have what we might call educated speculations, but surely it will not end because Ron Paul is the president. So if you want to think on that, you'll be confident. I think economic difficulties will increasingly constrain the maintenance of the American Empire and are already beginning to do so. For the moment, the US government is acting as if there are no constraints and everything can develop simply by creating more money. But that solution will soon be revealed as bankrupt, literally, because it's self-defeating. When it is seen to be self-defeating, there won't, in my view, be any good alternatives to it other than constriction of the scope of the American Empire. So I can foresee some base closures, some reductions in military spending, some other changes that will diminish the size and reach of American military forces on a worldwide scale. How far that will go depends on how bad the financial collapse or other forms of financial difficulties can turn out to be. And there we get into so many uncertainties that I'm not willing to make many educated guesses other than that I believe within the next one to three years, accelerated inflation will probably reach levels that cause the American authorities to impose price controls. And once price controls are imposed, then so many difficulties ensue because of those controls that it's hard to say what happens. Of course, they're harmful to economic productivity, so they limit real output, they increase poverty, and so ultimately people may realize as they always have in the past when Americans have imposed price controls that it would be good to give up the controls and restore a more normal type of economy. I think that's going to be more difficult to do on this occasion. I don't think however the probability of doing it is zero. We had a very great increase in money stock during World War II combined with raging price controls and many other forms of economic control. Also, in fact, during World War II the United States had a command in common. What looked like any markets were so constrained and rigged and controlled indirectly, if not directly, that would be fully common and actually be considered a command in common. But that was terminated. After the war ended, for the most part, free price system was allowed to operate once again, and adjustment was made to the fact that the money stock had nearly doubled during the war. What will happen in the future now may resemble what happened then. If it does, we'll be the luckiest people on earth. I don't think it will go so well this time, for a variety of reasons, but if you take the far field and you take the trajectory and guesswork to say any more. Do you have any idea how much money could be saved? Well, that's a very large question and the best answer I can give to the kind of wealth and ready gifts. I'm fairly sure that we could have got equally good results at half the expense. I think that until you actually delve into inner workings of the military industrial industrial complex, you really cannot appreciate the degree of sheer waste, uncertainty, idiocy that goes on and that continues year after year. Studies have been made since the 1950s by so-called blue-rhythm commissions to study the department of defense and its contracting operations in particular with private suppliers. Each one of these major studies reaches almost identical conclusions because nothing ever changes done then. By the 1950s, the people who benefit most from the operation of these apparatus have entrenched it so deeply that nothing can be done by critics to change it, to diminish it. The only real hope of diminishing the amount of sheer waste in the defense apparatus is if the entire government budget shrinks so that the military portion has to shrink along with it. It can be starved, but otherwise I think it is the closest thing we have in this world to the perpetual theft machine. My old friend, Honey Fitzgerald, who was an efficiency engineer for the Air Force for more than 50 years, became famous when President Nixon said on one of the tapes, fire that son of a bitch. After 10 years in the courts, that was job back with some compensation. Honey used to say a defense contract is a license to steal. I think that's a pretty good definition of what it is or how it works. My question is currently the U.S. spends about half of all military spending in the world. Everyone else in the world's military spending is a percentage of your GDP, just about everything else has been headed down. It's really quite low. The U.S. is stuck in about four percent of GDP. This really big question is, is everybody also backing off on military spending because the U.S. is so dominant or is it just because basically they don't see war as pain anymore? War used to be very profitable when you went and grabbed some territory, you got the farmers and the minerals. But now it's mostly buildings and war kills people and breaks things. Is there anybody to make money from it? So I guess the big question, I don't have an answer to it, is, did the U.S. cut back on military spending in other countries for a while? Is it a chance or did you say, don't you sell a lot? War just doesn't pay? No, I want to make a comment in response to what you said about, you know, it was good that the Americans were there when the Russians were coming in from the east. And I think this is sort of focused the issue on the tiredliness of American presence in wars and how good it was that the Americans pulled the chestnuts of the French out of the fire in World War I or something like this. One could also point to the fact that American involvement was very often crossed on in complicated military situations that might have been resolved differently such as World War I, which might actually have ended with a negotiated peace between the two sides once they had finished fighting with each other. The problem is that at least since the early 20th century there has been a well-organized group that has controlled American foreign policy, at least has sold a certain part of foreign policy to the country. Our major foreign policy magazines, such as Foreign Affairs, are controlled by this group, and it's a council on foreign relations, which has existed since 1919 when a lot of the groups across the country, together with various Democrats, came together and founded the purpose of involving the United States in the affairs of Europe. And Europe is always a terrible thing to the United States. It did not join the League of Nations, and it was a very good thing that it did not join the League of Nations because it would have been potentially committed to keeping down the Germans in the 1980s when on the side of the English of the French. And I think we should maintain the kind of neutrality once the war is over. We probably should have been involved in the war in the first place, but to continue to be involved in the United States and European affairs, the use of American armies to spread the democratic values of the United States, all these things have been pushed by the council on foreign relations. And the only regret of the Council on Foreign Relations is that most Americans do not be constantly about foreign involvement. And, near this to say, there is a military-industrial conflict that is very supportive of the Council on Foreign Relations. And there are, in fact, interlocking groups that are responsible for American, American, both very often called bilateralism in our foreign policy is the fact that the Republicans and Democrats are both equally involved in the business of exporting American democracy, committing American troops, and so forth. So that even if one can find occasionally good or benevolent's usage of the American military, it has in fact been a kind of protection machine involved in it, and it has been connected to bankers such as the Rockefeller Foundation, which has supported the Council on Foreign Relations and supported the foreign policy, the Morgan Foundation, World War I. So you have an interlocking economic ideological interest that has been behind the creation of this vast American empire that Bob has been describing. There could be, or there was, any level of understanding that it was a strong integration in the U.S. that caused such a terrible outcome, and there wasn't. Thank you. So the question is, wouldn't something else have gone terribly wrong if you weren't for this? Is that a good question? Well, what you said was no in advance. So in 1997 or year 2000, there was nobody in the mind sector or in the government. No, I don't think it just never came on the confession of my own. I can vividly recall looking at this paper about the year 2002, a reading a little article that said that Fannie Mae, a government-sponsored heritage rise that buys up on those mortgages, had just committed to $400,000. $140,000,000 to President Bush's program for increasing my minority home ownership, and I looked at that and I thought, you know, $440,000,000 here, $440,000,000 there, pretty soon you're talking about reading money. And I put the newspaper aside and basically didn't think about it in the end for several years. And I suspect I'm more cynical than most people. So basically this seemed like a really good idea to everybody who was anybody in America, Democrats and Republicans. One of the funny things is, for example, that I have not found a single partisan Democrat who has attacked George Bush's, as mentioned, George Bush's White House conference on increasing my minority home ownership. He's attacked him for everything else, but this whole series of steps leading up to that conference where he leaned on everybody to cut down payment requirements and told and sent a message to federal regulators to basically not take the punch bowl away from the party when things get interesting. Not a single liberal in the United States, as even mentioned, that event you can Google, but it hasn't come on because it's much more important within the United States for Democrats to denounce Republicans as racists than it is for them to go here and go here and story about all the Republicans around the economy. So basically everybody thought who said anything in public said this was a fine idea. And so nobody saw it coming because we basically have our reality of how it feels to basically not pay attention to these things of all embrace. Actually, I'd like to, I mean, after this, I'd like to question someone. Go ahead. It's a good question. To review a little bit, Barack Obama senior that had done when she was 17 years old, co-ed, and they got married a couple months later. And then Barack senior was like, graduated from University of Hawaii in three years. He was there on a Cold War scholarship program to bring young elites from Kenya to the United States for the Cold War struggle for the hearts and minds of the Kenyans. Then he graduated in just three years and so he used to go to Harvard. At that point, he also had a scholarship offered in another college in New York that he needed for his wife and son to come. But Harvard was Harvard and so he went to Harvard and left his wife and son of mine, married him in America. And he was there, because that would be his third wife and I mean he was still out of life in Kenya. The biggest aspect is that it's going to downplay. All right, at that point, so basically Barack only, junior only saw Barack senior for one month after that. However, he heard about his father all the time from his mother because she then fell in love with another third world student of the University of Hawaii, an Indonesian fellow in the world. And he was another leftist, didn't talk to revolution and so forth. And they got married and then after about a year, and then he had to go into Indonesian art. And then she moved, then Mrs. Obama, Mrs. Obama, so done on Obama, so a terror by this point moved to Indonesia. But when she got there, she discovered she was no longer in love with her second husband. And in fact, she started finding it really annoying because it just wasn't a romantic revolutionary event as a student of Hawaii. He was now working for an American oil company, diligently rising up the corporate ladder. And he was always asking her to come to dinners with his American contacts because they'll expect you there. You know, you are their people. And she would get very mad at him and say, they are not my people. So her second husband was probably a very good stepfather to young Barack Jr. He was really teaching him how to get high and really help them out with all sorts of things. And she increasingly presented her second husband's influence over her son. And to counter that, as Barack Jr. describes in some detail, the only authority figure she could come up with was his biological father who was held back in Kenya. And occasionally would write letters, but mostly she sort of created a myth about him. The reason he couldn't be with his love son was because he had to go back to his country to fight for his people to write, to become a political leader, to do proper things for it to lead his people to greatness, unlike his stepfather, his interlady, his wife, stepson. And so she sort of basically inculcated etiology to black racialist etiology in her son as part of her kind of passive aggressive war on her Indonesian second husband. It took Obama believed it all. It was quite shocking to him when he was in his later 20s, by the age of 26, when he finally discovered from his half-siblings in Kenya that his father had failed terribly in life to alcoholism, drunk car crashes, and so forth. We do know a lot about what his father had felt through about the year 1965, and this is presumably what his father had told his mother and his mother had passed on in the Cityology to her son. And that is that Barack Senior wrote a paper in 1965 to kind of criticising Tom Envoy as African socialism, which was kind of a more moderate, politically centrist point of view for gentlemen to the light of most of African thinking at the time. The key point was for Barack Senior was that Tom Envoy and his boss, John O'Niata, did not intend to take away the property of whites and Asian businesses in Kenya. Barack Senior took what we might now call rather Macabee's line, since whites and Asians did not become an economy. So to the extent, so I'm not sure if I would call it really Marxist. I don't see much in this article published by Barack Senior in 1965. It's distinctly Marxist. It's more kind of socialist, yes, but it's more kind of internationalist. It's more racial socialism than socialism for its own sake. The comparison of Barack and Gaby stands out. Sorry, that's taking a long time, but that is kind of the intellectual background that he was raised in. So when he talks about his deepest commitments, that is something that would be interesting to ask him. It explains a lot about why he's got 20 years in Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church. It might be worth $50,000 to Reverend Wright since his election in the United States Senate. It seems like a fairly simple and straightforward explanation that he sought out of Jeremiah Wright because he agreed with him. I have a question. After he spoke, I came up and I asked him about the Korean War. Didn't he think that was justified? He said no. He did have to agree that the people of South Korea were incomparably better off because the United States did prevent the North Korean invasion. But what about this point that has been made if in 1945, after the Second World War was over, United States would have withdrawn its troops completely to the United States. Mostly, the song well enough for a force of thought could defend the United States itself and attack, making it clear that that's all the United States is going to do. It's nearly certain that the Soviet Union would impose communist regime throughout continental Europe. Decades of tyranny, murder, torture, starvation, don't you think the United States had to keep a strong military presence? Prevent that? Yes, I'm asking. I don't know what was necessary at that point, but certainly the case with the United States there to bulk up Western Europeans is easier to fend off the Soviets at that point. I'm not sure what the point of the question is. Well, should the United States have died, what do you seem to be advocating as a general principle with no exceptions, the United States is just an army to defend its own borders? Or have I gotten you wrong? Because in order to defend where the Soviet Union had the most powerful, the largest manned army in the world at that time, in order to have incredible defence of Western Europe, the United States had to keep up a good size army. May I jump into this? Yes. Cross-eyed, just as an expression of the question. No, I do not think the United States should have pulled out of Europe in 1945. I also do not believe that the United States should enter World War One, should have been co-responsible for the Treaty of Versailles. I do not think it should have filed fine with all those cities in 1944 and 1945. It should not have yielded as often as it did, nor should the British have yielded as often as they did to Stalin. It probably could have ended the Second World War by negotiating with the non-Nazi government in Germany which existed, but which Churchill helped to undermine. After all those mistakes were made by the United States, so I think it should have stayed in Europe in 1945 and keep the rest of the continent a big swell by Stalin. Yes, I do. On the other hand, I do not think we should forget all the mistakes that were made before that, that brought about that situation in 1945. I do not think European history did not start in 1945, nor did it start in 1938. I think America is responsible, a co-responsible for many of the mistakes that were made throughout the history of the early 20th century. I would say the more a response to the question. It is a little different, difficult for me at this stage of my thinking to wrap my mind around that kind of question. People talk in those terms all the time, should the United States do this, should Britain do that, and so forth. This, to my mind, is a way of thinking about my being adviser to the prince. In my mind, all these princes are princes, all of them. Questions like this put me in the position of saying, should criminal number 3 have done such-and-such vis-a-vis criminal number 17? Well, that is a difficult question to answer. I tend to think more in terms of questions of writing on conduct by individuals. I think in terms of individuals protecting themselves from criminals, particularly those who form an operating nation states. I think in terms of free people, individuals, all of whom are beset by criminals on all sides. Usually the most menacing criminal of all is the government that purports to be their own ruler. All of these criminals can do this good if they do, such as bending off the red ironing and keeping it out of France and Holland. They can do it only by committing a multitude of crimes of their own. And not otherwise. They cannot operate in any other fashion. These nations states cannot get resources except by threatening to kill people who will not caught up with resources to them, which in my mind is extortion at best. So I don't give advice to the prince, neither prince number 3 nor prince number 17. It's a general question for the panel. I've been an immigrant since I was in Asia 25, and I'm now an immigrant. I wonder whether, A, I have arrived in where I am, and I am not in my country. And if I have this right, why not other people? I mean, where does one fall in line? It is proof that I support myself in Asia as I have in the other countries where I live. I inform them that it is something like that, which is the same for the government. But if I want, for instance, to have a Filipino maid or a Sinigamese private or an accountant from India, and maybe 10 accountants from India, such as the state of my finances, and I was, you know, why should I be prevented and on what ground would other people be prevented from importing this stuff? That is a question, and I think that to answer other issues that have been discussed about multiculturalism, isn't it a misnowner? Is it a problem of most immigrants that they simply cannot have a culture? So there isn't a multiculturalism. There are people who may or may not have a culture in a certain country, and other people who are coming who are completely dis-cultured without any sort of culture to speak of. My problem, when I am with people of different races, different culture, with different origins and so on, is whether they are honest, whether they are going above making the street, it's a problem of criminality and this applies to any nationality or any ethnic group and so on. I think somebody has mentioned on the panel that it is going to change the culture of the United States and change the culture of England and so on. So many things change the culture of the country. Think of cinema in the 1920s, of television in the 1950s, of internet in the 1990s. I mean, a lot of things are changing the culture. So if there are groups of people who come and have strong culture, not full law, but strong culture, living in a neighbourhood, living in another town, or living in the same town, in the same building, I mean, is it really a problem if we are honest and solid? Well, let me jump in here. The argument for open borders can be an appealing one theory. Can I just talk? I did say open borders. I said if I import people, because I want to work with them, that is not an argument for open borders. It is the same argument as open trade. In other words, if I buy a foreign car, a foreign car comes to this country, it is because I bought it or somebody else bought it. It's not because it landed on my doorstep. There are a couple of points. One is the issue of privatizing profits while socializing costs. As a Californian, they are sensitive to this. A lot of studies have been done. For example, for Californians, a long-imported huge number of migrant farm workers are still waiting. The farms in California are much less mechanized than the ones in Australia. Because they have a very cheap supply of labor from the southern border, however, it is not clear that the farm, the large landowners, account for costs of education, healthcare, policing, prison, and so on. California right now is basically broke trying to get land outs from the federal government. On the supply side, the number of people who could want to move to the United States is quite large. A fascinating statistic in this number of farms is that the number of people who are living in countries with lower or capita GDP in Mexico is about 5 billion, 43 million. In all its own limited supply of potential economic immigrants to the United States, who would take a long time before the standard of living in the United States would climb down to the level of Angus Degeneres. So, the question is, what we've been seeing is that large-scale immigration in California can lead typically of people with little education, and may have been work habits, but not much education to bring to it. It has turned out to be extremely expensive, as we've seen, with mortgage lending, with the gigantic deficits run by the State of California. It's really been an experiment in what happens. Then you have political changes. California voted for the Republican candidate for president every year from 1952 to 1988, with the exception of 1964, 9 out of 10 times. It's going democratic in the last five elections. It has a lot to do with immigration. The immigrants get into vote for tax and spend candidates on very rationing grounds. It also has an impact on the neighbors, people of California, when they increasingly have to make their living with, say, government-based civil service jobs, and finding work as teachers versus prison guards and so forth. I would suggest that one thing about America's immigration system is that it tends to be very emotional and driven with all sorts of appeals to the Statue of Liberty and so forth. Other civilized countries like Canada and Australia have a ration system where they make you apply and prove your usefulness to the current citizens of Canada or Australia. About eight years ago, I went online and I took the test to see if I was really immigrating to Canada and I failed. I must say that I was rather impressed on the project Mark City to the one belonging to the club that it would have made me feel like I wanted to move to Canada. Those are different kind of systems and they do take into account some of these costs by trying, you know, Canada has basically been trying to skim the cream off the human capital around the world. That has a lot of problems, but you don't see it in Canada going broke in California currently. Did I also answer this? In the United States you have the peculiar problem that all non-European immigrants, no matter how rich or educated they are, are eligible for affirmative action along with their descendants seemingly for all time. But it isn't only the United States. France, the French government kept telling the French people we need these Arab and black immigrants to do work that French people are no longer willing to do. You know something like 35% of Arab and black men between the ages of 18 and 40 in France are unemployed. And the government is desperately trying to make employment for the people who are supposed to be there doing work that French people didn't want to do. And for years France has now had affirmative action for blacks and Arabs so they can do jobs that French people do want to do and take them for French people who are much more qualified to do them. Thank you about the notion that, you know, cultures continue to change. I think we probably would disagree here on the nature of community because I do believe there are national communities which are continuing communities although they're not entirely fit. But I think what is happening now is that the government is imposing multiculturalism. It is not that the culture is simply changing. The government is shaping the culture and using immigrants that means probably to do this. And you see this in the United States with the attempts to push Hispanic culture, government support for a group with a racist name of Gaza. The way, I'm not just talking to David Farrow, mentioned the way that minorities are coming in. Excuse me? Steven. I mentioned the way that minorities are coming in from other parts of the world are immediately eligible for affirmative action. And the effect of these government actions is not simply allowing the culture to evolve. It is the force of the culture in a politically correct direction. I think it's worth 15 minutes.