 If you have a good culture, anybody will assimilate into that culture. That's not always true. I mean, many people in this country haven't assimilated. Well, that's because you don't try to assimilate them and you keep telling them their culture. Your culture is not good enough to assimilate into. If you actually break down what Nazism is, they don't disagree with it. America is by far the best country in human history and has contributed more to human life than any other country in human history in spite of its flaws. I want to test your iron-ran philosophy versus conservatism, because it's one thing to say communism sucks. Okay, that's pretty easy, right, for people like us. But what about conservatism? I didn't say it sucks. I said it was evil. No, yeah. Nuanced. Yeah, I'm non-nuanced. Yeah, non-nuanced, yeah. But conservatism, so if someone is fiscally conservative, they're like, you know what, I'm for small government when it comes to money, and don't tell me how to spend on money and taxes and regulation. Yeah. But this is what I was talking to... Do you know anybody like that? Some people, not really. Were serious? Who actually mean it? Well, they say it. They're willing to do away with 90% of the regulations that the government has imposed, and they want to cut taxes dramatically? Potentially, yes, but... I mean, conservatives usually want to conserve. That's what I'm saying. And they want to conserve the present. They don't want to conserve 100 years ago. They're not that... That would take radicalism. That would take revolution, and they don't believe in revolution. They want to conserve the present. Sure, but my... Or maybe 10 years. But my question is... But they're whips. Okay, they're whips. But my question is, with regards to conservatism, there is this idea that this country, or whatever country, isn't just a piece of land where we live. It means something, right? Yes. It has a national history, has a national pride, and you are someone who advocates for free market, so I'm assuming there'll be private schools for everyone, and if there are private schools for everyone, there's not a national curriculum where a conservative would be like, you know what, this country, U.S. or U.K., these are our values. This is what we stand for. Whether you're an immigrant or a leftist, rightist, you have to believe in this. What would be your answer to the conservative who wants to conserve that national pride or history, whatever, those core values? How scary is that that some group of politicians are going to decide what the core values that are going to be taught my child are going to be? I mean, that's what's happening today in our educational system, and it is really, really, really bad. So you would leave it up to individual people. Absolutely. And this is the problem. But then you get the problem that you could get a very radical view of what a child's value should be, and there comes the indoctrination, you know, you can be really into anything. You either believe in freedom or you don't believe in freedom, and it's essentially that if you believe in freedom's right in individuals' rights to raise their own children, or communists want to have... As long as they don't use force, the state has no role in intervening in their life. And as long as they're not beating their children, as long as they're not abusing their children, they have a right to educate their children as they see fit. Well, one could argue that abusing children is not simply physical. It's also... Once you get into that, then, you know, maybe by saying something that upsets you, I'm abusing you and now the state should intervene. These are the arguments against free speech. No, the role of the state is to protect us from physical harm, not from mental harm, not from things we don't like or disagree. This is why I'm against hate speech laws. I'm against all restrictions on free speech, because that becomes very dangerous and very subjective. What is speech that is okay and what is not? Same with children. Now, I don't think it's a good idea to send your kid to a madras. I don't think it's a good idea to send your kid to an Aryan buddy Nazi school. Or for that matter, any school today run by the government that is not quite communist, but on the way there, right? So my view is that should be left completely to parents. And look, there is a challenge in the West and that is what is the nature of the state? What is the identity of the state? What makes a state a state? And it's a real problem and it's a problem you're seeing particularly in Europe. And this is what makes, I think, the United States unique and where Europe could learn from the United States. The United States is not a place that is defined by borders. It is not a place defined by history. It's not a place defined by color of skin. It's not a place defined even by religion. The United States is a place defined by a couple of documents. It's a place defined by ideas. The ideas of individual rights, the ideas of liberty, the ideas of freedom. An idea of reason. The idea of bring everything before reason. That is at the base of the American Declaration of Independence and Constitution. That could be disputed. I know American history is slaving and racism. I know people say that all the time. Of course, American history has lots of warts and it has lots of problems in it. It's not a perfect country by any means. But it was founded on the right ideas even if they applied them badly. The ideas at the founding were the right ideas and that's what defines America and that's what makes America unique and I think America is by far the best country in human history and has contributed more to human life than any other country in human history in spite of its flaws. It has had flaws. Before we get on to the best country in the world. So for Europe, Europe needs to define an identity. How do you do that? For example, let's take this country. If I say British, I am British. Forget about colour skin, forget about race. What does British mean? We have had this conversation so many times over the last 10-15 years. People say it's the parliament, it's Buckingham Palace, it's the Queen, it's the church, it's the this, it's the that. Or we are a country of immigrants. How do you decide what is British and does it even matter? Well, I think it does matter. Who decides? Reality decides. You have to identify it in reality. So the question to ask, it's a question of how you approach it. The question to ask is this. What is it? What is it about Britain that is good? What is it of being Britain that has led to Britain being successful? What is it about Britain that we want to perpetuate? Right. And it's not the church, it's certainly not the Queen. But it's what is it? In my view, it's the Magna Carta, it's a fight for individual rights, it's the abolition of slavery, it's an industrial revolution, it's a certain key element. So what is Britain about? Britain is the land, and it's most importantly, in my view, most importantly by far, it's the Scottish and British Enlightenment. It's the 18th century, we have to think about what about Shakespeare? Because Shakespeare is a very mixed bag when it comes to moral messages, it's a mixed bag. But what about Shakespeare? It's a language, it's a drama, it's the beauty, it's the intelligence. So what is it about? I would say Britain should become like America. The ideas of America are true ideas. They are the good ideas for every country. Britain has a particular spin on them that is connected to John Locke and the Enlightenment. So what is Britain? Britain is the idea of reason, individualism, individual rights, that is what Britain is. I'm going to challenge that. Empire. Many people, if you ask what about Britain, they would say empire. People of my heritage, Pakistan, India or parts of Africa, they say that we understand Britain through empire, and that's what made Britain great. Great Britain, this arrogant thing, and then you'd have to ask the... Well, two things I'd say to that. One is it's definition by non-essential, that is not the essential of what made it. The fact that Britain could conquer a third of the world, you have to ask yourself what made it so powerful. The mechanism that impressed Britain. What made it so powerful, that's what's interesting, not the fact that it conquered. In fact that it conquered, you could view it as a negative, but if you view it as a negative, then you have to ask yourself, is it true that what Britain did was negative or was it on net positive? Now, I'm not justifying the empire. A lot of the stuff done in the empire was horrific. Just like in America, I wouldn't justify slavery. But, you know, is India better off or worse off for... Pakistan possible? That's the question if you ask about India. For the railroads for the educational system, the British educational system. But putting that aside, that is not what's essential about Britain. Now it's true. As a foreigner looking at Britain, you might say that's how I know it, but if you look at India and you study the history and you study their ideas and you have to define Britain not based on what the worst of it is, that's not the essence of the place, right? It would be like saying, well, Germany's Nazis, that's it. And nobody says that, right? Because it's politically incorrect to say, well, Germans are Nazis, that's it. We're going to treat... They can never overcome that, that's what they are. But they do that for Brits. And they do that to Americans. That's good. See, the world hates virtue. The world hates goodness. The world hates capitalism. And it hates individualism. And the two countries, they symbolize that more than any other countries in human history, Great Britain and the United States. Would you say they hate capitalism more than Nazis? They hate Nazis, but they don't hate the Germans because the Germans are not capitalists, they're not individualists. You see, they don't hate the fundamental ideas of Nazis, just like they don't hate the manifestation of Nazism. But not the idea. So what is the idea of Nazism? It's collectivism. Everybody's a collectivist. Everybody's a collectivist today. It's nationalism. Nationalism today is very popular. It's racism. It's racism. Who's not a racist today? The left is a racist. The left has identity politics. It's full of racists. The left is racist. It's becoming more and more racist. So if you actually break down what Nazism is, they don't disagree with it. And certainly if you break down what communism is, what is communism about? Collectivism. They love collectivism. Living for your neighbor. Everybody thinks that's moral and that your duty is to live for your neighbor. Sacrifice? You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, right? So everybody believes that you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, so that's fine. And that's why they still love communism. They don't have that same negative association. And they still love the fundamental ideas behind Nazism. And that's why these things can repeat themselves and they can keep coming back and why we have to be so vigilant and why the only alternative to them is individualism and capitalism. And as long as we don't fight for individualism, this is why I reject conservatism. Because they're collectivists. They're just moderate collectivists as compared to the collectivist. And let me just say I don't want to conserve anything, so I'm not a conservatist. I want to conserve the good and I want to chuck the bad. They're still conserving something. Well, no, because if it's British, it's good, right? From their perspective. I want to take British history and say this is good. Okay, we'll keep that Shakespeare. This is bad. The monarchy. We'll kick that out, right? I mean, what conservative would say, let's kick out the monarchy. So I want to, you know, National Health Service, awful. Let's kick it out. Which no conservative would say. Oxford University, good, but let's make sure the government doesn't intervene too much. It's really a private institution, which is less and less of the time. Let's figure out John Locke, good. Mill, half good, half bad, right? So you, yeah, I want to discriminate. What is good and what is bad. Let's keep all the good and that's British. That's what England represents. But again, this is the last point, because I look over so much to cover. This is a very interesting conversation, so much to cover. But on deciding what is good and bad, that, again, is subjective. Someone could say, or disagree with you, and say, no, actually I think Mill is better than Locke. Absolutely not. There's only one standard for deciding what is good and what is bad. Is it pro-human life or is it anti-human life? And at the end of the day... But again, like I said, if you've got to crack a few eggs... Again, it's wrong, but if you've got to crack a few eggs... If a million people die, that's anti-human life. If a million people die, that's anti-human life. So you could argue that the British occupation of India, because it resulted in, I don't know, famines or whatever, was anti-human life. Fine, then it's bad and we kick it out. But the standard is, and we judge the history and we value, is it good for human life? Now, we can look at Shakespeare and say, is Shakespeare good for human life? And I would say, and this is a way you can conceivably see people argue because art is difficult. But no, Shakespeare is actually... The joy that you get from watching Shakespeare play over rules and the other considerations, and it's pro-human life, so yes, absolutely yes. You know, is Kandinsky pro-human life? No, it's garbage. It's splashing paint on a canvas that's not art and contributes nothing to human life. Now, there, defining objective standards for art is more difficult. But on most political issues, this is simple. Are people thriving? Are people getting rich? Are people enjoying their lives? Are they dying of starvation? Are they suffering in concentration camps? So it's very easy, in my view, to look at history and say this is pro and this is against. Okay, now the next question is open borders, immigration is communism. Mr. Brook is an enemy of capitalism slash the free market, that's a question. Whoever says that doesn't know what communism is. They have no conception of communism and they certainly have no conception of what capitalism is. So can you explain to me, coming back to the free market versus the conservative way of thinking, they are for borders, limited immigration. You're saying no borders. No, I'm a strong believer in borders and I'm a strong believer in a nation-state. I don't think, I think there are too many nation-states so there are probably a few of them. But I'm a strong believer in a nation-state because you need a body of law at the same time. Your promagation. Very promagation. How do you delineate that or how do you differentiate that from the conservative? Why are you pro and they are anti? Well, they're anti because, for many reasons. One, because there's a xenophobic streak in many conservatives that associate the nation not with an idea, not with the good parts of history but with color of skin or heritage or genes or bloodline. Culture is fine. But culture, if you have a good culture, anybody will assimilate into that culture. That's not always true. Many people in this country have not assimilated. When you keep telling them their culture, your culture is not good enough to assimilate into. The fact is that if Britain was proud of its own culture and could define its culture, I mean, you orzilly have said we can't even define the culture. But if we defined it properly and we had clear vision of what it actually was, then people would assimilate. Take the United States. United States assimilation is happening all the time. Within two to three generations, people are completely assimilated into the culture. Italians and Irish and Jews of the 19th century and it's true of Mexicans and Honduras and Chinese today. The people from my background, Pakistanis or Indians that go to America are very different to the Pakistani Indians that come to the United States. That's because America has defined culture. It understands what it is or it used to. I think that's fading. It used to understand very clearly. See, a country that's free and a country that knows what it is is confident. It's not afraid of new people coming in and being convinced that they are good. So America is a melting pot where you bring your values in and you keep the good ones and you trash the bad ones. And the problem in England today and the problem in America today and the rest of the world is we dare not say that there are bad values. Because multiculturalism, all values are equal. I say if you want to come here as a Muslim, fine. But you realize that if you're going to treat the women, first of all, you can't mutilate the genitals. That's against the law and you'll go to jail and you'll go to jail and throw away the key. We're not going to be nice to you. And if you beat your women, that will not be tolerated. You will go to jail. And if you treat your women badly, we might not be able to put you in jail for that. But we will ostracize you. We will call you out. We will tell you that that is unacceptable behavior because that is not a way a civilized people behave. So what is lacking in the West is this recognition. It's fine. It's a recognition that we have values. Our values are superior to those other values. That's why they're coming here. Now we're going there. And that we need to assert those values, not by using force, but just by speaking up, by asserting them, by living by example and by telling people, you want to live here? Fine. Fine. So people assimilate when you have a clear set of values that you know what they are and you fight for those values. You can assimilate something if you've defined it clearly. Otherwise what am I assimilating into? And the reason America is a place where people assimilate more to and certainly historically have assimilated easily, it's because it's much clearer. It's much more well-defined. And the expectations are obvious. So let me ask. So to me, this cultural threat is not a threat. I believe, for example, in American culture, people come, you know, we'll assimilate them to become Americans. So this is a threat or a concern I've seen more on the right. Conservatives, whatever you want to call it. If, for example, in 2070 or 2000, let's say, 80 years time, nearly, the vast majority of Americans were of Mexican descent. Yeah. 80 percent. I'm just making up a number of whatever it is. I don't care. You wouldn't care? No. What I would ask you is, you know, what's the country like? That is, it's a self-free country. Is the institutions still the same institutions? What if the language of government was Spanish? I think that would be a mistake. Why? Well, because I think that to fully understand the founding documents of America, they were written in English. English is part of the country. You see, it's very easy to translate. Languages are not equivalent, but the point is that if now the language is Spanish, then America's failed in assimilation, and that's a bad sign. So to me, it's not about the color of people's skin. It's not about where they come from. It's not about the culture they used to have. What culture do they have today? And if they've adopted English, and they love Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, and they love the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and they love a system of divided government, of the division of authority within the government, that if they love the system of government in America, and they love freedom, and they want to be left alone, and they want to leave other people alone, all of that was true. And these guys were libertarians as hell, or free-market as hell. I don't care what color skin they had. But this book's Spanish. Look, Dan, if all of that were true, then I wouldn't care. But that is so impossible to actually understand. That wouldn't happen. And indeed, I don't care where you're free, right? So if you could establish in America and Mexico, if you could establish in America and Brazil, establish in the Congo, I don't care. I don't care who are the people. What I care about is the human freedom about the values. And I don't care who adopts those values. I want everybody to adopt those values. But if some people adopt it first, I don't care where they come from. That's again the tribalism, the collectivism, ultimately the racism that infuses our culture. And I think it's barbaric. And I think we live in the 21st century. It's time to end it. It's time to get over it. Last point on this. Many conservatives have said the way libertarians or free market people think is unrealistic. They are talking about this in theory. Yes, I don't care about color skin and this kind of stuff. But in practice, when these people come from different countries and these countries are less developed and more tribalistic, and they are not afraid of asserting their values, right? Even if those values are equal. Now, if we libertarians or free market guys welcome come into our country, whatever it is, and these guys are where they treat their women or themselves or other people, and then there's a racial element to it and there's a linguistic element to it. And now certain streets or towns or cities have changed radically, visibly. And now the host or the native population is under threat. So I'd say the conservatives need to focus their energies on what matters and focus their energies on what is it that makes Britain Britain, what is it that makes it great. You know, focus their energies on defining the culture and asserting themselves in changing the dialogue and not letting the left, you know, not accepting multiculturalism and fighting against it. The battle is not. They shouldn't be expending all this energy on building walls. Instead they should be expending the energy on defining a culture that they want to live under and denouncing from the top of every tower and from every other tower in the land denouncing multiculturalism. But look, it's more than that. You know, the state has only one role in my view and that is the protection of individual rights. You can't protect individual rights of some by violating the rights of others. You can't protect rights if you're violating rights. So by putting up borders, by putting up walls, by putting up restraints against the innocent people and we can define what innocent means, right? And I don't think everybody should be allowed in. You have to have some criteria. But by violating other people's rights, you're not protecting Britain's. At the end of the day, you're creating a government that now has more power than it had before. You're not going to be able to limit that power. And that's what we've seen. Governors that are more status, more involved, not just in the border, but in our healthcare, in our economy, in every aspect of our lives. So I want to shrink government back to the point where it is, you know, in every government, I strongly believe that every government should be unique and have its own geographic area. I'm not an anarchist. Every one of those governments should be focused on protecting the individual rights and it should not be violating people's rights. People have a right to cross the border. I have a right. You have a right to invite your family from Pakistan to visit you here or to come and work for you. You have a business, you hire them. What is it my business who you hire? What is it my business who spends time in your home? What is it my business? Unless they have a threat to me, it's not in my business. Now, this is where the state needs to intervene. The only place for the state to intervene when it comes to immigration is to try to figure out if there's a threat. I am somewhat sympathetic to Muslim immigration bans because to the extent that we say we can't differentiate between the Islamists, the people who want to kill us, and the average Muslim who could assimilate, to the extent that I can't differentiate, okay, so no Muslims, fine. But Poles, you know, non-Muslim Africans, they're not a physical threat to us. And if we're confident, they will assimilate. They do assimilate. If you look around the culture, they have assimilated. And, you know, you look pretty assimilated to me. Thank you very much. In spite of the fact that you come from a Muslim background, you come from a family. And yet, here you are with second generation. You weren't even born here. You were born in Pakistan. So, I mean, you're an example. It's just not true that people don't assimilate. They do assimilate. So you want to separate a threat. So you want to be able to, at the border, you want to be able to eliminate anybody with an infectious disease, obviously. Anybody who has a criminal background, you know, particularly given the, or his engaging criminal activity that you have information on. Would you let communists come in? What's that? Would you let communists come in? Yes. I wouldn't judge people's ideas. Really? But I thought that was the whole thing. I would judge their ideas, but it's not the government's job to judge ideas. Now, if we are in war with communism, so during the Cold War, that's it, then no, right, because we're in war. That's why I would exclude Islamists. Right now, I believe the West is in war with certain elements within them as a world. So you don't let, you know, during World War II, you don't let Nazis in. So if there's a war, you exclude the people who are on the other side. But there's no war with communism. Communism is a pathetic ideology that's dying. And, you know, I'm not afraid of it. It's not something you need to keep out because you're afraid of. Okay.