 Fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is The Iran Brookshow. Alright everybody, welcome to The Iran Brookshow on this... What is it? February 26th, it's a Monday. Hope everybody's having a great beginning of their week. Yeah, look forward to this week. This will be the last week for a while for regular shows because then I'm traveling to Europe and so on. Let's see... Yeah, we've got a full agenda today. Tons of stuff to cover. So we'll jump right into it. Let me just address this question by Remo. Well, part of the question. On January 31st, I said your question by email. Remo, I think I answered the question on Saturday show. I think it was Saturday. So if you can check and let me know, confirm whether that was the question or wasn't the question. And if it wasn't, then resend it to me. But I do think I answered it on Saturday. Alright, I'll get to Tchaikovsky later. Alright, let's see. Yes, let's jump right in. I mean, what the hell? Gemini. Gemini. Gemini. I don't know how you pronounce it. Gemini. Gemini is Google's AI, the competitor for chat GPT. It also, it has been, it was rebranding and a new version that was released, I think, last week. Gemini. Gemini. Gemini. Okay, Gemini. Gemini. Gemini also released a new version. They replaced BARD, if you remember they had, it was called BARD. And as part of the new version, they included a image generator. There was an image generator as part of this. And this created a huge fuel because people started searching stuff on the image generator in particular. And the image generator kind of seemed to refuse to produce images of like white people. So, for example, you asked the image generator to portray Nazis and they had a, you know, a multi-ethnic presentation of Nazis. Blonde, blue eye, white was not one of the presentation. Presentations, they asked, I think, about Vikings and again, you know, black Vikings and Asian Vikings and all kinds of Vikings. And so it was, it had somewhere in its code. It had this, always make sure that when presenting images of human beings, there is diversity. And it's an idiot, right? Because it is ultimately AI, so it's stupid. It took that literally. So when presenting Nazis, we have diversity. When we present Vikings, we have diversity. And so everywhere it presented diversity and it became, and it was like almost impossible to get it to actually generate an image of a white person, white to a majority and it was told to generate diverse and white is not that part. Anyway, pretty ludicrous, stupid, ridiculous. And of course this brought out, you know, everybody accusing Google of woke and everything. And it's true they are. I mean, that is an actual reality that if you, you know, people who work at Big Tech, people who work inside Big Tech, we've talked about this, hold philosophical, ideological positions that tend to be quite far to the left. That is the reality. Why? Because they go to universities. Why? Because the left seems to dominate smart people in particular, you know, programmers or in particular people who've been successful as programmers. I don't know what the answer to that is, but if you survey Silicon Valley, a vast, vast majority of the people there are left and some of them are wacky left, wacky crazy left, right? And, you know, it's something I think that if you're convinced that the left is wrong and the right is right, I did a whole show about how left and right, in a sense, useless concept because they don't actually reflect a spectrum. But if you hold that somehow, then the right has a lot of explaining to do. Why doesn't the right attract smart people, educated people, people who have important positions and important companies? What is so deficient about the right that it is unattractive to people like that? I know the answer to that. I think many of you know the answer to that. But that's an important thing that I think the right needs to grapple with, right? It needs to grapple with. Anyway, so Gemini is kind of, you know, the image generator was obviously nuts. So they were through the image generator and they've left the Gemini chat thing, the AI chat where you can ask it questions and stuff. And a lot of, I've seen a lot of commentary about how it is unbelievably biased. But it's hard for me to tell, and it's generally hard to tell when you see these things on Twitter or elsewhere. Is it real? Is it genuine? Because, you know, you could replicate the search. Problem with all these AI tools is every time you ask it a question, it gives you a different answer. They might be consistent answers, but they're different. So it's hard to replicate what people are posting and it's not clear that what they're posting is real. So I'm hesitant, but is there any question that Gemini is biased to the left? No, it's leftist bias. The people managing the project tend to be on the left. They have put in rules and guidelines that generally generate more leftist leaning answers. But I ran my own test, right? So I figured I'll run a test. I mean, here's one example, right? India got upset. India is called in Google Managers because it's very upset because when in an article describing Modi, the Prime Minister of India, one of the answers had, quote, that Modi was, quote, accused of implementing policies. Some experts have characterized as fascist. Now, I think that's pretty factual. Some experts have characterized it as being fascist and certainly, you know, Modi is pretty much a statist and the elements of what he's doing that are fascist. But the Indian government flipped out it's, you know, this is leftist propaganda. Stop it. Anyway, I ran a test. So I asked it just a few simple questions. It's on stuff that I actually know. Who is Iran, Brooke? It did a pretty good answer, you know, but then at the end it says something that I think, I don't think is non-objective. It says it's important to note that Brooke's views on various topics, particularly economics and politics, can be controversial and generate strong reactions. Yeah. It's recommended to explore his work and engage with diverse perspectives to form your own informed opinions. Yeah, I don't disagree with any of that. Then I asked it, what do Iran, Brooke's most controversial views? Well, it picked laissez-fait capitalism, income inequality, objectivism and views on social issues, including same-sex marriage and abortion, which, you know, those are controversial to the right, not to the left. So that was pretty cool. I mean, and that doesn't show bias. And again, it has, it's crucial to remember that these are just a few examples and specific aspects of Brooke's views considered controversial. Well, depending on individual preferences and ideological leanings, it's also important to note that Brooke himself, might not necessarily agree with the characterization of his views as controversial. He likely sees them as well-reasoned and logical positions based on his underlying philosophy and economic beliefs. For a more nuanced understanding, it's recommended to explore Brooke's works directly, engage with diverse perspectives and form your own informed opinions on the topical addresses. I'd say, not bad. Not bad. Then I asked her, what are you on, Brooke's views on war? And again, I think, wow, did a good job. You know, war of self-defense. Brooke believes that nations have the moral right to engage in wars only in self-defense. That is when their existence or way of life is directly threatened. This means PM to strikes are not typically justified unless there's undeniable evidence of an imminent attack. That's interesting. I'm not sure why she took that, but oh, he or whatever. The importance of clarity. Brooke's emphasizes the need for clear, well-defined war aims and irrational strategy. Wars cannot be fought for vague motivations or unclear objectives. Pretty good. Individualism within the context of war. Brooke argues that war should be waged to defend individualism, meaning the rights and freedoms of individual citizens against aggression. He opposes war's thought to impose collective ideologies or to pursue abstract principles not directly related to the defense of the nation. Pretty good. And imperialism. Expanding on his belief in individual liberty, Brooke is strongly opposed to interventionist wars and attempts to impose them, that attempt to impose democracy, a particular way of life on other nations. He believes that a country should only fight militarily if its own existence or freedom is at stake. I mean, these are pretty good answers. Now, I asked the same thing on my laptop earlier, and I got different answers. So again, every time you ask it, it gets a little different, but they're not that bad. And at the end it says it doesn't have, it says important notes. You're on Brooke's views are based on a philosophical system, objectivism that may not align with everybody's worldview. It's essential to consider the criticism and complexity surrounding his statements, particularly regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You can find further information in Iran's views on war by listening to his podcasts, visiting the Iron Man Institute website or reading his articles. I mean, I don't know how you get much fairer than that. I mean, most people I would ask who know a little bit about me would probably give a worse answer than that. I asked who is Iron Man, a pretty good answer. And at the end of this answer, it says, legacy, despite the controversy, Iron Man's works continue to be widely read and debated. Her novels have sold millions of copies, and the Iron Man Institute, and it's dedicated to promoting objectivism, is active in advocating for ideas. However, it's important to be aware that the criticism surrounding her work and form your own informed opinion based on different perspectives. All right, let's see, was there anything? I mean, when you ask about anti-Semitism, it gives pretty vague, it doesn't want to really blame the left for too much anti-Semitism, although it does say, and at the end it says, don't conflate criticizing Israel with anti-Semitism. It wants to make sure that's right. When I asked what is woke, it gave a pretty good answer for what is woke, right? And I don't think it was particularly biased in terms of what is woke, yeah. I mean, a right-wing AI would give a different interpretation, but it wasn't horrible. Same with what is social justice, it's definitely slanted, and you don't get at the end, you know, think for yourself, investigate different opinions about these things. You don't get that for woke, and you don't get that for social justice. You get it for your own book, but not for that. And I asked what the social justice views of Israel is, and it gave, you know, at the end it says, it's essential to remember that Israel-Palestinian conflict is exceedingly complex with valid concerns and perspective on both sides. If you seek a comprehensive understanding, it's necessary to explore various views and be mindful of the sensitivity surrounding this topic. And you could go on and on and on. Sure, it gives horrible answers and some questions, and you can probably search long enough and get something really, really horrible. But most of the questions I've asked are the same thing as true of chat GPT. I got reasonable answers to not the answers maybe I would give, but I don't expect that. I think it's interesting, and these are amazing tools. But if it's systematically biased in subtle ways, which I think it probably is, you've got to be aware of that, you've got to think about that, and you've got to be, just like when you listen to the news or you read a newspaper doing something like that, you've got to be aware of the fact that any source of information you get has some bias or is likely to have bias. And usually of the left-leaning kind, if it's in the media, the same thing is true of AI, and you've got to take that into account, and you've got to adjust for it. And the challenge is, of course, for people who don't can't do that or don't know how to do that, and I don't know how you fix that. Everything, you know, it's very hard, short of objectivism and being objective for people not to have a real bias around these things, and I don't know how you fix it. I don't know that there is an easy way or a way in the culture we live in today to fix it other than for you as consumers of information to be hyper-vigilant about Elon's AI is going to be just as biased as any of these other AI. No less biased than Fox was, you know, non-biased. Elon's not objective. Neither is any media source that I know of. But Elon Musk is super non-objective and super inclined to being flippant and flippancy, which is not objective. So, no, I don't think Elon is going to solve this problem. I don't think anybody today is going to solve this problem. I think it's a problem. One has to compute into whatever use you're making of AI. You've got to take this into account. Okay, I've talked about this for too long. Let's jump in. What's the next topic? Yeah, Millet at CPAC. All right, so Millet gave an hour-long talk at CPAC. CPAC is the Conservative Political Action Committee. It's been around for a long time. It's once a year, it has a conference in Washington, D.C., but they also have conferences. I think they've had conferences in Australia recently. They've had a conference in Hungary. It used to be the place for conservatives. It's become, basically, it's been taken over by MAGA. It's been taken over by people supportive of Donald Trump. Conservatives of old school are no longer invited to CPAC. Anyway, Millet gave a talk there. It was an hour-long, although it was simultaneous translations. Well, so he said a sentence and then it was a translation. So it was really a half-hour talk with half-hour of translation. And much of it was pretty good, but some of it was awful. Awful, not even bad, just horrible. His attempt to defend capitalism this time was much more collectivist. It's as if he understood his audience. All right, this is CPAC audience. There are a bunch of collectivists. I can't really go after them too much. I can do it in subtle ways, but not too explicitly. So he attacked regulations, but he had an opportunity to attack tariffs. He didn't, he attacked regulations. He came out for free trade. But he positioned it all vis-versus socialism. Every time he said the word socialism, there were vast applause the audience went nuts. In his talk at the World Economic Forum, he didn't just say socialism. He mentioned statism more broadly and he gave examples of that. So that was a lot better than, that was a lot better. It was a foster period talk generally, but it was... He got into a little bit of a technicalities of market failure and all of that. I think the audience was pretty bored by it. You could tell by the low energy. Socialism and then everybody cheered and everybody got upset. Right, they cheered his attacking socialism. But he basically gave a collectivistic defense of capitalism. Very collectivistic. Much more collectivistic than... Much more collectivistic than he did at the World Economic Forum. So that was super disappointing. But then, oh my God, he went into this long thing on abortion. It's CPAC, I guess. So he wanted to suck up the audience, but I think even he lost them. He was terrible. He was just awful. It wasn't just that he came out against abortion. It's that he claimed that all of us, at least me, I don't know about you, who are supporters of abortion, are motivated by the desire to see fewer people on the planet. We're guided by the environmentalist club of Rome. I don't know. Bill Gates, maybe. Conspiracy theory to reduce the population of the planet. And that's what motivates our pro-abortion stance. And to know more people are good. I agree with that, but you want to impose that. It was just beyond horrible. It was so disappointing. So disappointing. So no, Maryalene, we're not inviting him to Ocon. There's just too much collectivism there and too much of this anti-abortion, which I don't know where it comes from, because he's not religious, not particularly religious. I don't know if he's converted to Judaism or the way to converting to Judaism. I don't know how religious he is on the Jewish side. I don't know any of this. But it was very, very... I mean, his talk was very disappointing, both in his collectivistic defense of capitalism, where at least he's given hints that he knows better. And his whole issue of abortion was just horrible, horrible. So Scott can have Mele the anti-abortionist. He can have him wholeheartedly. And Ayn Rand from her grave can condemn Scott for all eternity for that. Because we all know Ayn Rand's position on abortion was not exactly Mele's. All right, Sweden. We've discussed this a lot, so this will be a quick one. You know, Sweden has been trying to get into NATO for a while now. First, the Turks didn't want it. Then the Hungarians said, oh, well, we don't know. And of course, so Sweden's been delayed and delayed, even though Finland is already part of NATO. Sweden finally sees the end of that process. Hungary has approved Sweden as a member of NATO. Sweden will be joining NATO any day now. It is a done deal. NATO is gaining a military powerhouse, a military force that is among the best trained in the world, a military production capabilities in terms of producing weapons systems that are some of the best in the world. They're also gaining a very, very anti-Russian ally. And another member of the alliance that basically now has the Russians completely penned in when it comes to the Baltic Sea. So if you look at a map, the Baltic Sea Russia has one port on that sea, a tiny little fragment of land, which is separated from the rest of Russia in between Lithuania and Poland. It has this one little piece of land with a port there. And then to exit the Baltic Sea, they would have to go through this very, very narrow passage between two NATO members, Sweden and Denmark. Basically, this would make the Russian fleet and the Baltic Sea completely ineffective if there was ever a war. It would be easy to completely destroy that fleet and to destroy that port. Russia would know, you know, Sweden is no longer neutral. It would participate. And as I said at the beginning of the war, or as I said when it was first mentioned, the Sweden and Finland would join NATO. This is such a strategic defeat for Putin. This is such a strategic defeat for the Russians that nothing, it doesn't matter what happens in Ukraine. Basically, they've lost the war because nobody, this wouldn't have not happened if Putin had not invaded Ukraine. And, you know, Sweden and Finland are a thousand times more important in terms of NATO allies than Ukraine is in terms of challenging the Russians. I mean, this basically puts Russia in almost impossible, almost impossible strategic position. All right. Let's see. Yeah, so Sweden, member of NATO. That's pretty cool. Basically, all of Europe now, with the exception of some of the Balkans, not the Baltics, the Balkans, are now members of Europe. And Switzerland, Switzerland is not. So Switzerland's the only major country that is not a member of Europe, not a member of NATO now in Europe. So the alliance is about as strong as it can ever be. And Putin can thank himself for that. Ukraine, you know, a lot of issues around Ukraine going on. Ukraine, Zelensky announced that, I think yesterday, from the beginning of the war, about 31,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed during the war, which is horrific. 31,000 people, that is a huge number. It is probably about a third of the number of Russians that have been killed in this war. And about a third of what the Russians have lost, anywhere between probably 70 to 120,000 troops killed, we're not talking about injured, since the beginning of the war. So think about 150, maybe 120 to 150 young people dead because of Putin's megalomania. Yes, please timestamp my saying Russia has lost because of this strategic move. Absolutely, timestamp that. And I've said it over and over and over again for now two years. So feel free to timestamp all those occurrences. And I'm sure five years from now I'll stand by it. And I think by then anybody who understands anything militarily and strategically will see that that is indeed the case. The importance of Sweden and Finland to NATO far exceeds anything any significant Ukraine has. Let's see. Other stuff going on Ukraine. Russia is making slow progress, very slow progress, particularly in the East, particularly in the Donetsk province and is capturing small towns, but it's very slow and it's costing them massive numbers of people, massive numbers of people. It is, you know, but Ukraine I think, Ukraine is suffering from a massive shortage of ammunition and a shortage of ammunition that really to resolve is going to need the United States passing an aid bill for Ukraine. I expect, I don't know because politics is always more complicated than I expect it to be. I expect Congress will pass such a support bill. I think if it's brought to the House floor it will pass by a massive majority and a significant number of Republicans will vote for it. The question is, can they get House Speaker to bring it to the floor? There is an option that the Democrats are testing, which is basically to go around the Speaker and bring it to the floor in spite of his objection. For that they would need a number of Republicans to vote to engage in that, to basically engage in that process, which is costly for Republicans. But there's some signs that they could get the votes from Republicans to bypass the Speaker. I think because of that the Speaker might decide to bring it to the floor anyway or to find some kind of compromise bill. I do expect that within, by the end of March, the U.S. will approve somewhere between 50 to 60 billion dollars of aid to Ukraine. That's my expectation. We'll see. Who knows? But that would be my expectations. The other thing, we'll get to that probably tomorrow about government shutdown. Government could be shut down. So that would make a lot of stuff irrelevant. Let's see. What else are the stories about Ukraine? Yeah, I think that's it. You are seeing M1 Abrams tanks finally being deployed in Ukraine. I think that's going to make a big difference. You are seeing F-16s deployed in Ukraine. We'll see F-16s deployed in Ukraine probably within a couple of months. That will make a big difference. I still think that if Ukraine gets the support, i.e. the weapons systems that it needs, Ukraine can still do a lot of damage and kick out the Russians from occupied Ukraine. All right. Let's see. What else? I think that's what I want to say about Ukraine. Social media. Yeah. And Skodas, today, arguments being made at the Supreme Court about basically two laws, a Florida law and a Texas law that aimed to regulate social media, that aimed to regulate the use of social media to aim to regulate speech on social media in favor of Republicans. And so the laws would ban social media from being able to exclude conservative speech. They would ban, for example, companies from what do you call it, deplatforming a politician of either party. So if you're a politician, you get social media doesn't have any rights with regard to you. You cannot be deplatformed. And a number of other issues that limit the ability of social media, restrict the ability of social media to basically make decisions about what should be on social media and what should not. Interestingly enough, the laws do not apply to conservative social media platforms like Paula Gabe and Truth Social as they are drafted today, which I think the Supreme Court might also take into account. Two trade groups have sued over this. Trade groups affiliated with social media companies. In the case of the Florida law, a federal court ruled the law unconstitutional and basically put a halt to it. The circuit court of appeals reaffirmed what the lower judge had disordered. So the law is frozen for now, not in place for now. In Texas, the opposite happened. I think I lower court affirmed it and then it was overruled by the Fifth Circuit, which disagreed. So in the case of Texas, a federal judge in Austin put the state's law on hold and then the court of appeals disagreed. And that's why it's now in front of the Supreme Court. So this has been, we've talked about these laws in the past so it's been around for a while now. States are claiming this isn't a free speech issue. This is a business regulation issue. Of course, the social media companies are claiming this is all about free speech and the state has no rights when it comes to this. And, you know, for example, the states are saying, look, the Supreme Court has held that a shopping mall must allow high school students to solicit signatures for political petition because a shopping mall is, quote, public, you know, public square and so are these media companies. I think you know where I stand on a shopping mall. A shopping mall should not allow high school students to solicit. It should choose which high school students to allow to solicit and which high school students not to allow to solicit. And mall owners have the right to free speech. It includes the right which speech they endorse, which speech they sanction and which speech not to endorse and sanction. So I disagree with the Supreme Court on any use of private property as if it's some kind of public square. It's not. So in this case, I'm unequivocally against both Texas and Florida. I very much hope that the Supreme Court takes a stand that is pro-free speech, which means leaving the social media to make their own rules and to decide for themselves their private companies, their private property, they get to decide what rules who can and cannot speak and what issues on their property. And we as consumers can decide whether to use them or not. Now, there's another case going through the courts that is accusing the Biden administration of suppressing free speech by putting pressure on social media. And in that case, the Supreme Court should vote against the Biden administration because clearly the Biden administration, as have previous administrations, but the Biden administration is by far the most egregious, Biden administration should not have any influence on social media in terms of what they do and do not that clearly is a violation of free speech. But for the court to decide that social media needs to play by rules dictated by state government authorities is a massive violation of the freedom of speech of the social media companies. So I reject that completely. And it's going to be fascinating to see how the court rules on all this stuff. And I think it's going to mean dedication about freedom because this would be a massive loss of free speech if the government decides to regulate the speech on social media. It would be a massive loss of free speech and free speech is at the core of our liberty, at the core of our freedom. And for those of you who think that the state of Florida and the state of Texas should be able to regulate speech on social media, shame on you. You're no friends of liberty. You're no friends of freedom. You're no friends of speech at all. Finally, good news. I think hard to interpret this only in one sense. Supposedly there was a big poll in Iran. I don't understand if there was this big poll. Supposedly done by the government. I don't understand these results and why they were released and who's releasing them now. This is from the telegraph. It's a newspaper in the UK. You know, other people are reporting it, other places are reporting it, but it's really hard to comprehend why the Iranians would publicize this unless, and the articles don't say unless this is not a public poll, a poll that was publicized, but somehow they got the info. The reporters in Dubai, I don't know, but this sounds too good to be true, but maybe it is true. Here's the story. Almost three quarters of Iranians want a secular government instead of theocratic dictatorship. The survey also revealed, and I'm reading from the news article, that less than one in ten people think women should be forced to wear hijab. Less than ten percent. That's stunning. All of this is a massive shift since the Go Revolution, since 2022 women like freedom uprising. So since that uprising, there's been this massive shift towards secular government and the government getting out of, you know, the whole world from 31 percent wanting a secular government to 73 percent wanting a secular government. I mean, that's astounding. And it would confirm what we heard on the show when I interviewed Purya, when I interviewed Purya, who escaped Iran, right? And he is communication with his Iranian relatives, and he was saying, no, no, this government's revolution is a moral revolution. This is a shift in the way Iranians are thinking, and this confirms it, if it's true. Only 7.9 percent of the respondents said they agree women must be made to wear the hijab, which is down from 18.6. Again, these are huge. The number of those actively objecting to the imposition of mandatory hijab increased from 15 percent to 34.4. While 38 percent said they are not against people who break the hijab laws up from 10.6 percent. And again, all of this, all of this is because of the revolution, because of the protests and all of that. 85 percent of those surveyors said Iranians have become less religious compared to five years ago, with only 7 percent claiming to become more religious. And further 81 percent anticipated a continued decline in religious observance over the next five years, with support for mandatory hijab seeing a sharp decline. And this is, by the way, in the middle of massive, massive crackdown on civil and religious liberties within the country, a dramatic increase in the number of people executed, at least 834 people were executed in Iran last year. And I don't know if this is true. It's some of the best news I've heard in a long time. This is fantastic. And it shows the power of these images, the power of these women, the power of the arguments they made, and the power of the courage of a minority, the courage of people going out there, taking off the hijab and just walking in the street, and the protest and all of that. It is true. It is amazing and how courageous these girls and women have been. You know, I talked about it. I gave a talk about it at the University of Texas. And to see a poll like this suggests that they had an impact. And that is heartwarming and inspiring, inspiring. All right. That is the news on this February 26th. I'm going to now turn to the super chat. So I will remind you that this is a listener-supported show. It exists because of support from listeners like you, you know, those of you who do support the show, whether on a monthly basis through Patreon or you're on bookshow.com slash membership, or those of you who use the super chat or the stickers or members on YouTube or whatever way some of you give me money through Venmo and all kinds of ways to give me support to show. I really, really appreciate it. You guys make this show possible. You make it possible for many people to listen who are not paying. But thank you for you guys who do support it. Okay. Let me see anything else we want to cover. No, we'll call that. We'll talk about some other things tomorrow. But for now, I think we're good. Again, yeah. Let's just talk about it tomorrow. All right. Remo, what are your favorite works by Tchaikovsky? I mean, my favorite works at Tchaikovsky are the first piano concerto and the second piano concerto. The violin concerto. Symphony number four, five and six. Four being my favorite of the three. Even what else? What else? I'd say those are by far my favorite. So the violin concertos and the piano concertos, particularly, again, one and two, I think he has three. What else symphonies I've set? Oh, yes, of course. The piano trio. God, one of my all-time favorite of anybody in the whole world of classical music. The piano trio. I like the nutcracker. I like Swan Lake. They're very much tied to the ballet. The music is obviously beautiful. But to really inspire, I'd say, those others, the violin and piano concerto, and then the trio. His chamber music is beautiful. Yeah, so all of those are my favorites. All right, let me go to the $50 ones. We've got a couple of $50. Dave, Dave Dean, thank you, Dave. Not presenting a misbegotten notion to play devil's advocate today. Not presenting a misbegotten notion to play devil's advocate today to inspire discussion. Okay. You know, cognitive dissonance a little bit. All right. I appreciate your consistent, consistently reasoned presentations, especially on individual rights. Hope your selfishly individualistic day is going swimmingly. Thank you, Dave. That is incredibly generous of you. $50. That is fantastic. Thank you. I appreciate that. So, and yes, feel free to ask any misbegotten notion while playing devil's advocate at your, I'm available to answer those misbegotten whatever, whenever you want. All right, Ryan, also $50, but Canadian, so a little less Canadian dollar, not doing so well. In the fountainhead, there are scathing reviews of works work written by second-handed experts. Criticism for the new intellectual views were eerily similar. Do you see any parallel Mille's reception by the media and western culture today? No. I mean, no, because most of the criticism of Mille is not even that intellectual. Most of the criticism of Mille I see are like, oh, well, he's just a Donald Trump, just another Donald Trump or another Bolsonaro, which is an insult because I think he's one of those in spite of the things he's really bad on. He's much better than both of those. I don't see that. I don't think Mille is, you know, I don't think you can compare Mille to how to walk or to Iron Man. I mean, he's as good as a politician goes, and some stuff he's very good on and some stuff he's awful on, as I said. But it's not, I don't think it's, I don't think it rises to that level of criticism. And the criticisms are pretty standard. These neoliberal policies, they don't work. They're just going to increase the number of poor people in Argentina and they're going to increase inequality and the ritual benefit. I mean, they're the same old boring things, but you see, they're afraid to over-criticize Mille for two reasons. One is the situation in Argentina where he got elected was truly brutal and they all know it. So something had to give. And second, what if he succeeds? And he might. And they want to hedge their bets. So I don't think they rise the same level. Again, but partially is I don't think Mille rises to that level. And the criticisms don't either. So again, I was enthusiastic about Mille but it's tempered and it should be because they're real problems. I mean, even in his World Economic Forum speech, I mean, his defense of capitalism at the end of the day was collectivistic. It wasn't individualistic. He hinted at the potential of being individualistic but he never laid that out. And then even there, he threw out this gratuitous comment about abortion and it's see-back. He went all out on the abortion stuff which is absurd and ridiculous. Quite quite stupid, I think. Quite stupid for a man who's really not stupid. Which is sad. It's sad. I still hope I meet him in Argentina but, you know, if I do meet him in Argentina, I'm going to tell him what I think about his abortion stand, which is ridiculous. Hopper Campbell says, Look how popular Mille is becoming all around the world. We are foolish to think free market radicals can't win. People are seeking honesty and passion. Yeah? Popular around the world? Popular? I'm not convinced though. I don't see it. Again, he was in front of the see-back audience, right? You know, it didn't seem like there was a small group of people who were super passionate. The only time he got any applause lines was when he went after socialists. But anybody could have done that. His positive agenda about liberating business about anti-regulation, about eliminating trade barriers not a peep from the audience. No support. So what do they like about Mille? They like about Mille what Scott likes about Mille. Scott, the only thing Scott emphasizes about Mille is he's anti-left. He doesn't like the socialist. But that's not a pro free market ideology. There's no pro free market elements. And the reality is, if you look at pro free markets, Nikki Haley's much more pro free markets than Donald Trump is, and she just lost in her hometown. So all these people care about is that he's anti-left. It's not what he's pro. And what he's pro is the only thing that matters in the end. Long term, it's the only thing that matters. Michael says, what are Muslim countries have a, why do Muslim countries have a harder time embracing the enlightenment than Christian countries. Is Islam a uniquely suicidal death pack? I don't think so. We have to remember historically that Islam had a golden age and it was golden. Certainly it was unbelievably golden relative to what Europe was experienced at the same time. That the golden age of Islam was caused by the same thing that led to the renaissance and the enlightenment in America. That is the taking seriously of Greek philosophy and Greek approach to human knowledge and kind of a scientific approach and empirical approach. Taking seriously Aristotle, if you will. Without that there was no golden age in Islam and there's no golden age of it. The problem is there's nothing inherent in Islam that prevents it. But the reason Islam got to the point of enlightenment is that for whatever reason and you could argue about what those reasons are the Mongols or El Ghazali famous Islamic philosopher or a number of other things they turned their backs on reason and on Aristotle sometime in the late 12th century at least in the Middle East and ultimately in Spain they lost to the Christians so they never got to develop those ideas further in Spain which was experiencing again part of this golden age of Islam. So I don't think it's inherent. I do think historically it faded it was destroyed and since then there has not been a revival and when it was revived when it was revived it tried to be revived in the late 19th century the only alternative a secular alternative was presented to the Muslim religion was fascism and socialism and that failed so they became even more committed to their Islamic views because whenever they tried secularism it failed it blew up in their face so no there's nothing inherent in it it's more an issue of the particular history that evolved the fact that maybe the Ottomans didn't think they needed an enlightenment because they were so much better than the Christian west until the late 17th century and then by the time they figured out no the westers overtaken them and they better learn something from the west it was too late for them but I'd say it's then abandonment of Aristotle just at about the same time that the west was re-embracing Aristotle so the west went in one direction and the Islamic world went in a different direction Hopper Campbell how can we be so materially rich while simultaneously being spiritually poor I mean that's a it's a good question but we can be people are incredibly good at compartmentalizing how many entrepreneurs and scientists and innovators do we know that are excellent at what they do at work and then are stupid when it comes to their lives, the values that they pursue in their personal lives and the politics that they embrace how many of them feel empty how often do you meet wealthy successful materially successful people who feel empty inside and you know don't know what to do with themselves and have not achieved happiness in spite of their material success I mean you see the spiritual poverty that the world is filled with and yet people can be compartmentalized now they can't be forever at some point it leaks and you can see the leak in Google Gemini you can see a little bit of the leaks so it leaks, it leaks from home from the bad values they adopt politically or philosophically or intellectually it leaks into their work but so generally yes I mean sadly there is no escaping the fact that it's people compartmentalized and the world in which we live today are very compartmentalized are very compartmentalized right Michael says there's a strong pro-life movement among NCAPs and I think Millay is getting this crap from, I still have almost respect for him and I think he is right that the left promotes abortion for anti-human nihilistic reasons I don't believe that, I don't think that's true at all in terms of the left I mean sure there's some people who do certainly the elements in the environmentalist movement and the elements in the world, crazy left but most leftists are not there most leftists are center left they would vote for Biden or AOC they won't vote for Bernie Sanders they'll vote for Biden, they'll vote for Centrist and they are they are poor abortion for the right reason because they respect a woman's life they respect a woman's ability to control her own body and her choices now they are incredibly inconsistent about it they don't know how to defend it they have no philosophical terminology about individual rights because they don't know anything about individual rights but to demonize the entire left is just wrong, fundamentally wrong and it's it's just like demonizing the entire right about certain issues I don't believe the entire right is anti-abortion I think this is why Republicans are losing election after election after election because they're discovering that there's a significant portion on the right Republican women who are actually pro-abortion because they're women because they're a little rational because they get it they know the pain and suffering that anti-abortion laws inflict on women the biggest supporters of the biggest anti-abortion proponents are all men I mean there's some women but they're men so you know it's wrong it just is unbelievably wrong the left is good up to a point on abortion and yes there's some freaks there's some crazies who wanted in order to reduce the population but that is a minority of people on the left a minority of people on the left and it serves the purpose of demonizing them so that you can go after the well everybody who's pro-abortion just wants to reduce the size of the human race all a bunch of crazy environmentalists no they are not and to have that view is to increase the likelihood that abortion will disappear Fenn Opposites thanks for recommending the myth of left and right I listened to it on Friday and I've used the ideas in it a lot since then including in chat right now it's going to start closing of the western mind after the show is over you finish that whole book in one seating God you have a lot of time on your hands Fenn Hoppe that's amazing I'm going to do the book review of closing of the western mind I think it's an excellent book I'm now deep into the reopening of the western mind which is great and the more I read about history the more I read about the history of Christianity and the dominance of Christianity over the Roman Empire into the middle ages and towards the Renaissance the more anti-Christian I become Christianity is the ultimate con it is the ultimate irrational ideology it is just unbelievable how bad Christianity really really is not in its views kind of in the way those views particularly in Catholicism have developed and manifest it's just all about power and it is the worst of all religious kind of attitudes it combines all of them and American Christians are pretty secular and that's what makes them relatively sane Christianity as an ideology there's no such thing but to the extent that dogma has been presented it's just unbelievably horrible unbelievably horrible alright Michael is the saying never speak ill of the dead based on altruism yeah probably it's based on do not judge right it's based on the biblical now I know it's the biblical you guys corrected me sometimes I acknowledge I'm wrong when I am wrong and I correct it's based on the biblical idea of do not judge who are you to judge and they're dead anyway so why judge quite the contrary you should judge you should judge them while they're alive judge them when they're dead the fact that if there's something to be learned from it there's something to be gained from it then yeah absolutely you should judge them yellow says how come you never get tired of talking about politics hmm interesting question I don't think of it as politics I think of it as the application of ideas to what's going on in the world and it's all interesting I find ideas interesting I find it challenging and interesting and you know if everybody if you know if it was easy or simple or self-evident then I guess I wouldn't have a following nobody would find it interesting but I think it's interesting I think and I think I think I bring something to it and it engages me so you know because I read the news anyway I'm interested in what's going on in the world and I've got ideas about them and I want to this is a great place to articulate I can't stop having views on everything in the world out there and on everything pretty much pretty much anything as you know from sex to politics to war to you know philosophy you know the whole thing and yeah why wouldn't I talk about it I have views I mean there's certain things I don't have views on it because I just don't know science I don't really have strong views about scientific issues we don't talk about them a lot because I don't know much about science I know very little about physics particularly modern physics it's bewildering to me much of it so I I don't talk about it I know you know I talk about scientific I don't talk about scientific achievements I talk about technological achievements because that kind of is the application application I get James Taylor was Hayek a better economist than Milton Friedman and Mario Rothbard oh god I don't know I don't know they were all good economists if you can separate the economics you're all good economists you know the problem with Hayek is he changed his mind about economic issues because of philosophical issues and he was a bad philosopher in my view very bad social thinker and a bad philosopher he was a good economist but his economics are often influenced as you'd expect by his philosophical and political views or social views so he was terrible on a on a central bank until very late as was Milton Friedman Milton Friedman philosophically was terrible epistemologically was terrible he had a he has a very very influential essay on the epistemology of economics which is awful which has done a lot of damage to the whole field of economics the whole field of finance and then Mario Rothbard of course you know is a good economist but again as soon as he deviated from economics he was awful and you know even when he deviates seemingly doesn't deviate from economics so he goes into history of economics he's awful I wouldn't believe a word you read from Mario Rothbard about history even when it comes to economic issues again because I read one of his books on the history of banking in the 19th century and it was fundamentally wrong and I know banking so I know it was wrong and and it was lying in order to prove an economic point he had made at some point so I mean yeah alright this is a question I'm not going to answer do you like Stephen Hicks and Craig Biddle I mean why would I answer a question like that I'm sorry Henry but it just doesn't make any sense to me that would be of interest I mean if you've followed me or if you've know of my public statements and appearances you know I have a low regard for them in various respects but I don't like dwelling and delving into into that negativity on the show it's not what the show is for it is so ironic that the right this is neocon it is so ironic that the right that claims that they fight a tyrannical government with its second amendment other ones screaming that Ukraine should make peace with Russia such hypocrites absolutely it's just unbelievable it's unbelievable that people who claim to be for freedom and liberty and anti-initiation of force and people who claim to be you know for self-defense and defending your land and defending your property from invasion that they would want Ukraine to settle with Russia is just beneath contempt it just yeah you gotta sell it you gotta compromise don't fight funny fathers what the hell what the hell is I've heard libertarians say this you'd expect it from libertarians say oh no the war of independence worse war ever Britain was not that bad why would you fight against Britain when it was not that bad and you know what did you get instead you got in America with slavery earlier so the war of independence a disaster should have never gone on a lot of libertarians believe that oh yeah yeah I mean anarchist libertarians you sound surprised Jennifer you need to hang out with libertarians more as I have on various occasions it's pretty pretty nasty chakra 19 hi I'm a 28 year old Israeli entrepreneur looking for the best place to live I thought about Austin any other recommendations I'll find a way for visa probably an investor easy um Austin is great absolutely and actually if you go to Austin chakra then let me know and I'll put you in contact with kind of the Israeli entrepreneur network in Austin Texas there's a very developed Israeli entrepreneur network it's a good network to be part of because you'll meet venture capitalists and you'll meet other entrepreneurs and it'll be to kind of ease you into a new culture and a new place but it's a very thriving very active entrepreneurial group meet regularly they help each other out but also again VC is engaged and VC is a part of the group so it'll it's a really good I also know a guy who's raising money now for Israeli entrepreneur so there's a I've got a lot of connections if you choose to go to Austin Austin I'd say is the best place right now in Silicon Valley is the gold standard it still is in spite of everything there's more money there's more VC's there's more entrepreneurs there's more talent there's more programmers there's more of everything you pay higher taxes you have to live with the stupidity that's going on in California but in terms of your ability to be successful as an entrepreneur there is no better place in the world if you want to maximize the probability of being successful as an entrepreneur than Silicon Valley it just isn't so Austin is great Silicon Valley in some respects better it's somewhat depends on and both places a great place that they live it's somewhat depends on how important for you is that California's got this crazy politicians and but has great weather by the way in Austin doesn't have great weather so it's a value hierarchy thing but happy to help once you decide where you're going to get you in touch with people if it key 13 have you heard of Harry Brown's permanent portfolio if so what are your thoughts on it both its conceptual framework and its relative effectiveness I assume your answer isn't financial advice it's not but I don't know what a permanent portfolio is it sounds really bad but I don't know what it is so I'll look it up and see if I can if I can provide you with with a better answer but but I just haven't heard of it permanent sounds bad you don't want to have to be permanent vis a vis a portfolio a portfolio yeah alright let's see Ryan adding more weak Canadian dollars so that my total today is 50 US dollars thank you that is incredible really appreciate that it's tough you're on I live in a social state and have to pay a carbon tax maybe one day I will break free absolutely I hope you do break free Canadians have many more options than Americans because Canada doesn't tax your worldwide income so you could for example move to Portugal or to anywhere and only pay a local tax and depending on your profession and depending on all other things there are lots of places in the world that have lower taxes than Canada an American can't do that because an American pays a local tax and then the difference pays to the IRS America is brutal brutal when it comes to taxes much worse than a socialist country like Canada you can go anywhere I knew Canadians went to Bermuda spent some time in Bermuda and Bermuda had no tax so they paid no taxes Americans went to Bermuda paid taxes to the IRS so take advantage of the fact that you live in a country that does not tax worldwide income and say so glad you're on thank you and I really really appreciate that I'm glad I'm on too it's good friend Harper says I get nine hours of headphone time at my job that is pretty repetitive myth of left and right is only four and a half hours as an audio book really wow that is that is pretty four and a half hours that's really short okay closing the closing of the western mind is much longer than I think it's 24 hours or something like that I'll have to yeah cool that it's only four and a half hours alright guys thank you really appreciate the support thank you to all the super chatters you were great today really appreciate it if you're watching the show and are not a subscriber please subscribe yeah please subscribe also if you want to support the show on a monthly basis you're on bookshow.com membership and Patreon I will be doing a show tomorrow I think I think a 3 p.m. show for the 2 p.m. show for the news and then an evening show and then on Thursday Thursday there'll be another evening show and that evening show will actually be on IVF I'll be interviewing a physician a doctor who has we'll talk about all the latest innovation in terms of artificial insemination and IVF and all of that and how the anti-abortion laws affecting the industry affecting the industry and yeah it should be fascinating so here's a he'll be a this is a world-class expert leading a leader in the field professor at Columbia University and a physician and we'll be talking about that on Thursday 7 p.m. east coast time alright everybody so if you have any questions about any of that please come along it'll be interesting I'm sure we'll get fewer viewers for that show cause you guys like the nitty-gritty politics and you know I've been going after the left and right and here we'll talk about we'll talk a little bit about anti-right but we'll talk primarily about something positive which is the beauty and amazing and stunningness of IVF technology thank you everybody I will see you tomorrow have a great rest of your week bye